JK 

^448 
C5 


UC-NRLF 


$B    Stst.    bOQ 


iA.;) 


'  ?  <*  y,  j{  '  ^  ■  '- ' 


OOP 


The  Chicago  Debating  Teams 


1911-1912 


Georjfe  N.  Foster 


Arthur  E.  Mullins 


Edward  E.  Jennings 


Affirmative  Team 

CHICAGO   VS.    MICHIGAN 


James  W.  Robinson 


Lewis  M .  Simes 


Frank  D.  Jones 


Negative  Team 

NORTHWESTERN   VS     CHICAGO 


THE    RECALL 

(Excluding  Judges) 


A    DEBATE 


The  Constructive  and  Rebuttal  Speeches  of  the 
representatives  of 

The  University  of  Chicago 


In  the  Fourteenth  Annual  Contests  of  the  Central  Debating 
League  against  Michigan  and  Northwestern, 

JANUARY  19.  1912 


QUESTION: 

"Resolved,    That  the  Recall  Should  be  Adopted 

for  all  Elective  State  and  Municipal 

Officers,  Except  Judges." 


Published  by 

THE    DELTA    SIGMA     RHO 

University  of  Chicago  Clispter 


If'*' 


FOREWORD 


The  recall  at  the  present  moment  occupies  perhaps  a  larger  share  of 
public  attention  than  any  other  one  question  of  governmental  policy.  Al- 
though an  outgrowth  of  the  movement  for  the  initiative  and  referendum 
in  an  effort  to  place  more  direct  control  of  government  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  at  large,  the  recall  has  separated  itself  to  some  degree  from  its 
companions,  and  is  being  studied  on  its  own  merits  more  than  as  a  part 
of  a  larger  scheme.  This  is  due  partly  to  new  phases  brought  to  light 
by  a  proposal  to  include  the  judiciary  in  its  scope.  When  a  president  of 
the  United  States  vetoes  a  bill  for  statehood  because  judges  are  made  sub- 
ject to  recall,  it  is  evident  that  the  issue  is  a  large  one  and  must  be  ana- 
lyzed with  care. 

The  recall  of  judges  involves  questions  apart  from  the  merits  of  the 
recall  principle.  By  omitting  judges,  the  question  is  narrowed  to  the 
fundamentals  of  the  recall  itself — its  theory,  tendencies  and  possibilities. 
Each  Chicago  team  has  considered  three  phases  of  it — its  eflfect  upon  the 
government,  the  voter,  and  the  official.  They  have  not  tried  to  enumerate 
every  point,  but  have  developed  the  high  lights. 

Chicago  lost  both  the  debates  on  this  subject,  but  ofifers  neither  ex- 
cuses nor  apologies.  Debates  are  won  by  tactics  and  methods  of  attack 
and  defense  rather  than  by  differences  in  subject  matter.  The  value  of 
these  speeches  to  the  reader  lies  in  the  soundness  of  the  arguments,  not  to 
the  fact  that  these  arguments  did  or  did  not  prevail  in  the  debate  itself. 

CHARLES  F.  McELROY, 

Debating  Coach. 
University  of  Chicago,  Peb.  15,^  1912. 


The  Debate 


EDWARD  E.  JENNINGS,  FIRST  AFFIRMATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — 

I  need  not  tell  this  audience  that  there  is  corruption  in  our  state  and 
municipal  governments.  There  is  no  disagreement  as  to  the  source  of 
this  corruption.  We  have  allowed  ourselves  to  be  governed  by  profes- 
sional politicians  who  have  been  the  tools  of  selfish  interests.  Everyone 
agrees  that  there  is  only  one  way  to  end  corruption,  and  that  is  for  the 
people  to  take  an  active  part  in  government,  not  once  in  so  many  years 
but  all  the  time. 

The  recall  is  one  of  several  measures  intended  to  give  the  people 
more  direct  control  of  governmental  affairs.  One  of  the  first  was  a 
direct  primary  by  which  the  people  name  their  own  nominees  for  office 
instead  of  voting  for  nominees  named  by  bosses.  This  has  been  fol- 
lowed in  some  cases  by  the  short  ballot  which  relieves  the  burden  upon 
the  voters;  the  initiative,  whereby  the  people  can  get  the  laws  that  they 
want;  the  referendum,  by  which  they  can  kill  undesirable  laws;  and  the 
recall,  which  gives  the  people  control  over  officials.  We  are  concerned 
this  evening  with  the  recall  only,  which  can  work  in  harmony  with  one 
or  all  of  these  measures  or  independently  of  them.  The  recall  is  a  part 
of  the  progressive  movement  that  is  sweeping  the  entire  country.  This 
measure  has  the  endorsement  of  such  typical  statesmen  in  both  parties 
as  Taft,  Roosevelt,  Wilson  and  Bryan.  Its  most  conspicuous  opponent 
in  this  section  of  the  country  is  Senator  Lorimer,  ably  supported  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Michigan. 

The  recall  means  that  the  voters  who  elect  an  official — whether  of 
state,  county,  town,  or  village — ^^have  the  power  to  remove  that  official  at 
a  special  election  if  he  has  violated  his  trust.  Judges  are  not  under  con- 
sideration. 

The  usual  procedure  for  recall  is  as  follows:  A  petition  is  circu- 
lated stating  the  grounds  for  recall.  This  petition  must  be  signed  by  a 
specified  number  of  voters,  say  25  per  cent.  It  then  goes  into  the  hands 
of  a  clerk,  is  certified  and  an  election  called  within  about  30  days.  The 
officer  then  goes  before  the  people  for  re-election  together  with  other 
candidates  that  may  be  nominated. 

3 

248553 


Debate:    The  Recai^l 

The  recall  has  a  brief  but  intense  history.  Originating  ten  years 
ago  as  a  part  of  the  commission  form  of  city  government,  it  has  grown 
to  be  an  important  issue  in  National  politics.  At  the  present  time  it  is 
in  operation  in  its  complete  form  in  the  three  states  of  Oregon,  Califor- 
nia and  Arizona.  Fifteen  states  provide  for  its  adoption  in  city  charters, 
and  one  hundred  and  fifty  cities  scattered  throughout  the  United  States 
have  adopted  it. 

Our  argument  in  support  of  the  recall  will  be  presented  in  three  main 
divisions. 

First,  we  shall  show  that  because  there  is  gross  misrepresentation  by 
public  officers  we  need  some  remedy. 

Second,  we  shall  prove  that  the  recall  gives  the  people  the  power  to 
correct  misrepresentation. 

Third,  the  recall  in  practice  gives  better  government. 

It  is  my  purpose  to  show  the  need  for  the  recall. 

Since  as  individuals  we  are  unable  to  carry  on  the  enormous  busi 
ness  of  our  state  and  municipal  governments,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
choose  agents  to  perform  this  work  for  us.  While  we  are  willing  to 
leave  the  details  of  government  in  the  hands  of  our  agents  we  expect 
them  to  carry  out  certain  broad  principles  and  to  have  certain  qualifica- 
tions. We  expect  our  public  officers  above  all  things  to  be  honest. 
There  is  no  more  excuse  for  retaining  a  dishonest  agent  in  public  busi- 
ness than  in  private  business.  We  expect  these  men  who  conduct  our 
public  business  to  be  competent — ^men  who  know  how  to  perform  their 
job  and  have  the  energy  to  accomplish  it.  We  expect  also  that  our 
agents  will  work  for  our  best  interests.  Why  should  we  not  have  the 
same  condemnation  for  a  public  agent  who  betrays  us  as  we  have  for  a 
private  agent  who  sells  our  business  secrets  to  a  rival  firm?  These  are 
some  of  the  most  obvious  and  fundamental  things  which  we  expect  of 
those  to  whom  we  delegate  the  business  of  carrying  on  our  government. 

Misrepresentation  when  viewed  as  a  simple  business  proposition  has 
three  important  phases. 

First,  lack  of  responsiveness  on  the  part  of  the  voter;  second,  in- 
efficiency; and  third,  corruption.  Let  us  consider  first  lack  of  respon- 
siveness. A  few  instances  will  convince  you  that  many  officials  when 
they  take  office  conduct  it  in  a  manner  which  is  directly  opposed  to  the 
wish  of  the  people  whom  they  are  supposed  to  serve.  They  feel  sure  for 
their  specified  term  of  office  and  proceed  to  violate  every  principle  of  rep- 
resentative government.  We  need  not  go  far  from  home  to  get  a  few 
examples.  The  treasurer  of  Cook  County  refuses  to  open  his  books  to 
the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  for  inspection,  on  the  ground  that  he  is 
responsible  to  no  one  but  his  bondsmen  for  the  conduct  of  his  office. 


DEBATE:    Th^  Recall 

Since  his  bondsmen  are  the  banks  in  which  he  has  his  money  deposited  he 
virtually  declares  that  he  is  responsible  to  no  one  for  the  people's  money. 
Now  the  treasurer  of  Cook  County  may  be  an  honest  man,  but  whether 
honest  or  not  he  certainly  does  not  represent  his  constituents.  Take  the 
case  of  Peter  Bartzen,  President  of  the  Cook  County  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners. Ever  since  his  election  to  that  office  Peter  has  pursued  a  policy 
of  misrepresentation.  He  seems  to  be  possessed  with  an  insane  passion 
to  serve  the  Bartzen  family,  instead  of  the  people.  He  has  committed 
all  the  crimes  against  his  constituents  possible  without  laying  himself 
liable  to  prosecution. 

The  second  aspect  of  misrepresentation  is  inefficiency.  Many  of  our 
governors,  mayors  and  lower  officers  are  perfectly  good  citizens  but  are 
inactive  and  useless  in  the  business  of  government.  They  are  often  set 
up  by  the  business  interests  as  figureheads.  They  are  looked  upon  as 
"safe  men,"  men  who  will  not  do  anything  one  way  or  another  except 
take  then-  "ease,  honors  and  orders"  and  make  no  trouble  for  the  bosses 
and  the  interests.  Such  men  have  often  made  a  success  and  the  voter 
thinks  that  they  will  apply  the  same  principles  to  politics.  Too  late  he 
wakes  up  to  find  the  office  burdened  with  deadwood. 

Then  there  is  the  corrupt  official.  Everyone  is  familiar  with  the 
degrading  situation  that  exists  in  many  of  our  cities  where  officials  have 
well  earned  the  names  of  highway  robbers,  boodlers  and  grafters.  In- 
stances are  constantly  being  unearthed  such  as  the  conviction  of  twenty 
of  the  boodle  combine  of  St.  I^ouis ;  the  corruption  of  politics  in  Chicago ; 
the  infamous  gas  ring  in  Philadelphia,  and  boss-ridden  Cincinnati.  The 
Merriam  Commission  of  this  city  found  graft  connected  with  every  act 
of  city  administration  which  it  investigated.  The  mere  mention  of 
such  cities  as  Pittsburg,  Philadelphia,  San  Francisco,  Chicago,  and  Bos- 
ton, and  such  states  as  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Missouri,  Ohio  and  Illinois, 
brings  before  the  average  citizen's  mind  a  picture  of  graft,  greed  and  in- 
efficiency that  is  appalling. 

When  such  circumstances  arise,  what  has  become  of  our  boasted 
representative  government  conducted  in  the  interest  of  the  people?  Un- 
der our  present  laws  the  voters  are  helpless  to  remedy  this  criminal  and 
immoral  situation.  They  must  meekly  submit  to  having  their  pockets 
robbed  and  their  decency  outraged  because  they  have  no  adequate  means 
of  self-defense.  We  believe  that  the  voters  should  be  given  an  effective 
instrument  to  correct  this  gross  misrepresentation,  and  we  shall  show 
that  the  recall  will  secure  this  result. 

We  would  call  your  attention,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  to  the  fact  that 
we  have  a  specific  remedy  for  a  specific  evil.  We  are  not  advocating  the 
recall  as  a  cure  for  all  the  petty  evils  of  government,  but  we  have  local- 


Debate:    The  Recall 

ized  a  specific  defect  at  the  point  in  our  government  where  an  official  is 
not  doing  what  he  was  put  there  to  do.  It  is  here  that  we  vvpuld  apply 
our  remedy.  My  colleagues  will  show  that  the  recall  is  the  proper  rem- 
edy. The  situation,  therefore,  that  we  must  face  squarely  is  simply 
this: 

The  recall  has  the  endorsement  of  men  who  believe  in  progress  and 
not  reaction. 

We  are  face  to  face  with  a  compelling  need  for  reform. 

First,  because  of  gross  misrepresentation  due  to  unresponsiveness, 
incompetency  and  corruption  of  officials. 

Second,  because  the  voters  are  helpless  under  our  present  laws. 


J.  W.  ROBINSON,  FIRST  NEGATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — 

The  gentlemen  of  Northwestern  told  you  that  there  were  one  hun- 
dred fifty  cities  throughout  the  United  States  that  had  adopted  the  recall. 
We  call  your  attention  to  the  statement  of  the  question,  and  ask  you  to 
notice  that  it  includes  all  state  officials.  The  recall  has  only  been  adopted 
in  three  states — Arizona,  California,  and  Oregon — where  it  has  not  been 
a  part  of  a  program  in  connection  with  the  commission  form  of  city  gov- 
ernment. Tonight  we  are  not  discussing  its  merits  as  a  part  of  this  pro- 
gram, but  the  question  is,  shall  we  adopt  the  recall  for  all  elective  state 
and  municipal  officers,  independent  of  any  program  at  the  present  time, 
and  under  our  existing  conditions?  It  means  that  every  elective  officer, 
except  judges,  in  every  state  of  the  union  from  the  governor  to  the  vil- 
lage clerk  shall  be  subject  to  a  recall  election  at  any  time.  In  includes 
state,  county,  city,  and  village  officials. 

The  gentleman  pointed  out  that  there  is  misrepresentation  in  our 
government,  and  that  impeachment  in  many  instances  has  been  slow  in 
its  operation  and  will  not  correct  the  evil.  We  are  not  here  to  discuss 
the  question  of  impeachment.  The  affirmative  has  offered  for  considera- 
ton,  a  specific  remedy  for  what  they  clairn  is  a  defect  in  our  government, 
and  the  burden  is  on  them  to  show,  not  only  that  the  defect  exists,  but 
also  that  their  particular  remedy  will  cure  this  defect.  The  fact  that 
the  operations  of  impeachment  have  been  slow  in  a  few  instances  does 
not  show  that  we  should  adopt  the  recall. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  some  corruption  in  our  government,  but  the 
encouraging  thing  is  that  we  have  constantly  progressed.  Mr.  Bryce,  in 
his  edition  of  the  American  Commonwealth  for  1910  says:  "No  one 
who  has  studied  the  municipal  governments  of  the  United  States  doubts 


Debate:    The  Recall 

that  they  have  progressed  from  decade  to  decade  and  that  these  govern- 
ments are  in  a  better  condition  now  than  they  have  ever  been." 

The  question  for  consideration  is,  Will  the  recall  stimulate  this 
growth  or  will  it  retard  it  ? 

We  believe  the  recall  will  retard  the  development  of  our  government : 

1.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  the  true  theory  of  representative  gov- 
ernment under  which  we  have  made  such  marked  advancement. 

2.  Because  it  will  produce  instability  in  government. 

3.  Because  instability  will  have  a  harmful  effect  on  business  con- 
ditions. 

In  a  representative  government  the  people  must  act  through  the  offi- 
cial. ^  The  recall  specifically  applies  to  the  official,  and  diminishes  his 
power  because  it  gives  the  people  the  right  to  take  any  official  out  of 
office  at  any  time  for  any  act.  Thus  the  officer  is  forced  to  get  the  pulse 
of  the  people,  to  diagnose  their  case  and  then  give  them,  not  what  they 
need,  but  what  they  want. ,  If  what  they  want  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  what  the  officer  knows  is  essential  to  the  best  interests  of  the  govern- 
ment, he  is  in  a  predicament  where  he  must  either  carry  out  policies  that 
he  knows  are  wrong,  or  be  disgraced  by  a  recall  election.  Such  a  policy 
presupposes  that  the  officer  knows  less  than  the  average  voter ;  that  he  is 
simply  their  mouth-piece,  a  mere  figure-head,  an  automaton,  and  that  the 
average  voters  are  prepared  at  any  time  to  pass  on  the  officer's  acts,  or 
to  pass  on  any  one  act  isolated  from  all  others.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
right  or  wrong,  legality  or  illegality,  competency  or  incompetency,  but  is 
simply  a  question  as  to  whether  or  not  it  suits  the  populace  at  that  particu- 
lar time. 

This  is  contrary  to  our  theory  of  government  because  our  officers  are 
not  mere  mouth-pieces,  mere  figureheads ;  they  are  men  elected  because 
of  special  fitness,  because  they  are  prepared  to  do  that  particular  work,  and 
they  are  given  the  power  to  use  their  discretion,  their  judgment.  A 
glance  at  the  complexity  of  government  will  show  how  essential  it  is  that 
the  officer  be  given  such  discretion.  The  voter  elects  a  large  number  of 
state,  county,  and  city  officials  with  very  dissimilar  duties,  each  voter 
having  from  ten  to  almost  one  hundred  officials  to  pass  upon.  Surely  we 
couldn't  expect  the  voter  to  familiarize  himself  with  the  duties  of  each 
official.  No  voter  makes  a  technical  study  of  the  railroad,  financial  and 
corporation  problems,  dozens  of  other  intricate  questions  with  which  the 
legislator  must  deal,  and  also  a  technical  study  of  the  other  officials*  du- 
ties. Even  to  acquire  a  general  knowledge  would  take  most  of  the 
voter's  time.  Therefore,  in  order  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  a  representa- 
tive government  we  must  elect  officers  with  special  fitness  and  then  give 


Dbbat«:     Thb  RBCAtL 

them  power  to  think  and  to  act  for  us  in  a  host  of  things  concerning 
which  we  have  but  the  faintest  knowledge. 
V  Second : '  The  recall  will  produce  instability  in  government.    Our 

policy  has  always  been  to  give  the  official  a  fixed  term  to  carry  out  his 
work,  and  there  is  a  growing  tendency  in  favor  of  lengthening  the  term 
of  office,  and  thereby  lengthening  th^  time  between  elections.  Chicago  has 
its  second  mayor  serving  a  four  year  term  and  New  York  has  recently 
changed  the  term  of  its  officials  from  two  to  four  years.  The  tendency 
to  lengthen  the  term  of  office  is  general  throughout  the  whole  country. 

The  recall  will  produce  instability  in  government  because  instead  of 
a  fixed  tenure  there  will  be  an  uncertain  tenure.  Instead  of  regular  elec- 
tions only,  we  shall  have  also  a  multitude  of  special  elections  with  the 
emphasis  on  the  special  elections.  People  will  come  to  think  that  it 
won't  make  any  difference  whether  they  get  good  men  in  at  the  general 
elections  or  not.  They  will  say,  "We  will  give  him  a  trial  and  if  he 
doesn't  suit  we  can  change  him.*^' 

Fixed  tenure  rests  upon  the  idea  that  the  official  needs  time  to  study 
the  duties  of  his  office,  to  formulate  policies,  and  to  test  them  in  the  light 
of  their  operation.  Uncertain  tenure  means  that  the  official  dare  not 
undertake  policies  that  may  be  unpopular  at  first  or  that  require  time  to 
work  out ;  but  that  he  must  always  keep  vividly  before  him  the  popular 
feeling  and  the  fact  that  he  will  be  removed  if  he  runs  counter  to  it. 

The  previous  speaker  told  you  that  an  official  could  be  recalled  but 
once  in  six  months,  but  he  didn't  tell  you  that  we  have  from  ten  to  one 
hundred  officials  in  each  place  that  would  be  subject  to  a  special  election, 
and  that  the  people  could  recall  state,  county,  and  city  officials.  Thus  it 
is  possible,  not  only  to  have  a  recall  election  every  few  months,  but  if  the 
people  get  the  election  craze  they  could  have  an  election  in  most  places 
every  day. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  recall  is  a  weapon  that  will  be  used  only  on 
rare  occasions,  that  it  will  be  used  judiciously ;  but  these  statements  were 
made  concerning  the  Initiative  and  Referendum,  when  these  measures 
were  adopted  in  Oregon.  The  first  two  years  they  were  used  judiciously, 
for  the  people  voted  on  but  two  measures;  but  at  the  next  election  the 
people  voted  on  eight  measures  and  at  the  next  election  they  voted  on  nine- 
teen measures,  and  at  the  last  election  the  people  voted  on  thirty-two 
measures.  The  recall  is  newer  in  Oregon  than  the  Initiative  and  Refer- 
endum. During  the  first  four  years  of  its  existence  it  was  used  but  once, 
but  in  191 1  it  was  used  at  least  five  times  and  was  attempted  to  be  used  a 
great  many  more  times. 

If  the  recall  is  adopted  we  have  every  assurance  that  it  will  be  used 
often,  and  used  indiscriminately  because  it  is  possible  to  have  a  special 


DEBATE:     The  Recall 

election  whenever  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  voters  are  dissatisfied  with 
the  acts  of  their  officials.  Thus  instead  of  elections  occurring  at  fixed 
times  they  will  occur  not  even  according  to  the  whim  of  the  majority,  but 
according  to  the  whim  of  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  voters.  Thus  the 
disgruntled  politician,  or  the  defeated  political  boss  has  it  within  his 
power  to  call  an  election  whenever  he  wants  one,  because  he  always  has  at 
least  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  electorate  on  his  side. 

Already  in  Tacoma  they  have  had  four  recall  elections  in  two  months, 
and  just  recently  the  women  attempted  to  recall  Mayor  Billing  in  Seattle 
because  he  had  a  jailor  who  was  very  efficient  but  whose  ideas  ran  coun- 
ter to  what  the  ladies  demanded  of  a  jailor. 

In  a  city  or  state  where  the  people  are  almost  evenly  divided  on  some 
vital  issue,  for  example,  the  liquor  question,  instead  of  one  election  de 
ciding  the  issue  it  may  take  dozens,  becaus.e  the  defeated  party  has  al- 
ways an  excuse ;  therefore  another  election  will  be  held  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. Thus  the  government  will  be  kept  in  a  state  of  eruption.  The 
political  pot  will  be  kept  boiling. 

Third:  This  instability  in  government  will  have  a  decided  and 
harmful  effect  on  business.  We  all  know  th^iat  our  presidential  year  is 
our  worst  year  from  a  business  view-point.  For  months  before  and 
after  election  business  is  in  an  unsettled  condition.  It  is  at  a  standstill 
waiting  to  see  what  the  election  will  bring  forth.  One  of  the  vital  things 
for  the  growth  of  business  is  that  there  be  definite  decisions,  something 
that  the  business  man  can  depend  upon.  When  he  invests  capital  under 
certain  conditions  he  wants  to  know  that  those  conditions  will  be  perma- 
nent for  at  least  a  fixed  period.  Think  of  the  condition  of  the  capitalist 
and  also  the  laborer  where  an  election  is  possible  every  few  days  or  every 
few  months.  The  chaos  into  which  business  is  thrown  by  a  special  elec- 
tion was  well  recognized  by  the  business  men  in  Wichita  last  August 
when  Mayor  Graham  was  recalled.  The  Wichita  Beacon  of  August 
24th  contained  statements  of  all  the  leading  business  men  of  that  city  and 
they  were  unanimous  in  one  thing,  and  that  was  this :  that  no  matter  how 
the  election  terminated  it  would  hurt  Wichita.  The  effect  that  instabil- 
ity has  on  business  is  also  illustrated  in  Los  Angeles.  That  city  voted 
bonds  for  city  improvements,  and  for  months  they  made  vain  efforts  to 
dispose  of  these  bonds.  The  Oregonian  of  last  November,  in  an  article 
on  this  subject  explained  that  the  reason  given  for  Los  Angeles'  failure 
to  dispose  of  its  bonds,  according  to  many  financiers,  was  the  fact  that 
the  government  of  the  city  was  in  such  an  unsettled  political  condition. 

Only  recently  the  business  men  of  Seattle  have  held  mass  meetings 
urging  and  pleading  with  the  people  to  drop  the  petition  recalling  the 

9 


v/ 


Debate:     The  Recall 

mayor.  Their  argument  to  the  people  was  that  another  special  election 
would  seriously  injure  business. 

If  the  recall  will  produce  such  results  in  our  city  government  how 
much  greater  will  its  effect  be  on  our  state  government  as  advocated  by 
the  affirmative,  because  the  states  deal  with  all  the  greater  economic 
and  political  problems. 

Honorable  Judges,  I  have  shown  (1)  that  the  recall  is  wrong  in 
theory;  (2)  that  it  will  produce  instability  in  government;  (3)  that  this 
instability  will  have  a  harmful  effect  on  business  conditions. 


ARTHUR  E.  MULLINS,  SECOND  AFFIRMATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — 

The  gentlemen  of  the  negative  admit  that  there  is  corruption  in  our 
state  and  city  governments.  They  admit  that  we  have  misrepresentation, 
but  they  argue  that  the  recall  will  not  correct  this  misrepresentation  for 
certain  reasons.  Those  reasons  thus  far  seem  to  be  briefly  these:  That 
the  recall  will  be  used  too  frequently,  and  hence  will  make  for  instability ; 
and  that  it  is  a  fallacy  of  government  which  was  recognized  by  the  fathers 
when  they  omitted  the  recall  provisions  of  the  Confederation  from  our 
constitution. 

As  to  the  fear  that  the  recall  will  be  used  too  frequently — both  rea- 
son and  experience  prove  the  contrary.  When  a  man  is  elected  to  office, 
he  takes  his  seat  with  a  majority  vote,  and  it  will  take  a  clear  case  of 
corruption,  incompetence,  or  unresponsiveness  to  cause__a^  majority  to 
overrule  their  own  former  judgment  and  remove  ihe  man  they  elected. 
Experience  proves  this.  The  recall  has  been  used  less  than  twenty-five 
times  altogether  since  its  adoption  ten  years  ago.  As  for  instability,  tlie 
Pacific  coast  states,  the  so-called  "hot  bed"  of  the  recall,  show  an  increase 
in  clearing-house  receipts,  against  decreases  in  the  middle  west  and  in 
the  east. 

Our  fathers  used  the  lights  before  them  to  work  out  their  own  des- 
tinies. With  the  light  we  have  before  us  we  should  try  earnestly  to  work 
out  our  own.  What  has  the  fate  of  the  ancient  republics,  of  Greece  and 
Rome  to  do  with  the  recall?  The  recall  does  not  mean  a  surrender  of 
representative  government.  But  it  means  that  the  officer  must  really 
represent  the  people.  He  must  re-present  the  broad  policies  for  which 
they  stand.  Granted  that  the  recall  is  an  additional  instrument  to  our 
present  machinery  of  government:  Our  fathers  departed  from  precedent 
or  else  we  should  be  doing  homage  with  the  Durbars  of  India  to  King 
George  the  Fifth.    The  Boston  Tea  Party  and  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 

10 


Debate:     The  Recall 

pendence  were  departures  from  precedent.  Those  breaches  of  precedent 
gave  us  democratic  government.  To  make  democracy  real  we  may  need 
new  instruments.  Although  the  recall  has  been  in  operation  for  ten  years 
and  is  now  used  in  some  form  in  twenty  states,  many  may  call  it  new. 
But  if  it  is  new,  and  we  need  it,  we  should  adopt  the  device. 

My  colleague  has  cited  examples  of  shameful  corruption  in  our 
states  and  cities,  and  he  has  shown  you  that  the  people  are  helpless  to 
correct  this  misrepresentation.  He  indicated  three  types  of  officials  who 
misrepresent :  First,  the  corrupt ;  second,  the  incompetent ;  and  third, 
the  unresponsive.  If  there  is  some  instrument  which  will  help  us  to 
get  rid  of  these,  then  certainly  we  should  adopt  it.  Now  let  us  see  what 
effect  the  recall  will  have  upon  these  officials.  We  shall  see  that  the 
recall  will  not  only  remove  such  types,  but  it  will  stimulate  in  all  officials 
a  keener  sense  of  duty  to  the  people. 

Taking  up  the  effect  of  the  recall  upon  the'  corrupt  public  servant : 
At  present,  because  the  party  lines  are  closely  drawn  and  the  party  nomi- 
nees are  controlled  by  that  notorious  preventive  of  good  government,  the 
political  machine,  men  with  corrupt  motives  are  constantly  elected  to 
office.  Without  the  recall  such  officers  recognize  no  fealty  except  to 
the  machine.  Why  should  they?  They  recognize  no  check  except  a 
check  with  the  signature  of  a  mercenary  corporation. 

A  typical  case  is  that  of  A.  C.  Harper,  of  Los  Angeles.  By  the  in- 
fluence of  California's  historic  vampire,  the  Southern  Pacific  Railway, 
and  of  the  boss.  Harper  was  elected  mayor  of  Los  Angeles  in  1910.  By 
official  protection  the  new  mayor  gave  free  rein  to  vice  and  crime.  His 
political  pilots  were  the  railway  counsel  and  the  ring  politicians.  Hap- 
pily, before  Harper  could  wreck  the  city  a  petition  was  started  for  his 
recall.  The  mayor  was  called  upon  to  justify  his  conduct  before  the  peo- 
ple. He  was  not  brazen  enough  to  make  the  attempt,  but  withdrew 
from  the  race,  thereby  acknowledging  his  guilt. 

Another  betrayal  of  trust  by  a  public  servant  was  that  of  Hiram 
Gill,  of  Seattle,  Washington.  Gill  was  elected  mayor  of  Seattle  in  1910. 
No  pirate  on  the  Spanish  main  ever  preyed  upon  his  victims  with  as  little 
compunction  as  did  Gill  and  his  police  chief  Wappenstein  in  blackmail- 
ing the  gambling  and  resort  keepers  of  Seattle. 

The  people  soon  realized  thatiheir  city  was  becoming  a  haven  for 
criminals  and  prostitutes.  A  respite  came  when  Gill  took  a  joy-cruise 
on  an  influential  brewer's  boat.  Mr.  Wardall,  the  acting  mayor,  removed 
Chief  Wappenstein  and  attempted  to  segregate  the  vice  district.  On. 
Gill's  return,  he  checked  the  reform,  reappointed  Wappenstein,  and  re- 
stored disorder.    Thoroughly  aroused,  the  people  used  the  recall  against 

11 


Debate:     The  Recall 

Gill,  resulting  in  his  removal,  and  the  dismissal  of  his  henchman  Wap- 
penstein — who  has  since  been  convicted  in  a  court  of  law. 

So  much  for  the  corrupt  officer.  Now  as  to  the  incompetent  officer. 
Junction  City,  Oregon,  had  a  mayor  in  1909  who  was  grossly  inefficient. 
The  voters  believed  that  the  officer  who  did  nothing — who  was  a  dead- 
weight in  office — was  nearly  as  bad  as  the  one  who  did  wrong.  So  they 
recalled  their  dummy.  Mayor  Fawcett  of  Tacoma  was  recalled  for  the 
same  reason.  Mayor  Fawcett,  by  lack  of  executive  ability  and  general 
inefficiency  kept  Tacoma  in  a  turmoil.  Mr.  Fawcett  was  not  elected 
simply  to  refrain  from  grafting,  to  be  negatively  harmless.  He  was 
elected  to  administer,  to  execute,  to  be  positively  helpful  to  the  people  of 
Tacoma.  He  failed  to  make  good.  The  people  were  not  content  to 
remain  quiescent  for  four  years  while  an  incompetent  retarded  progress. 
Hence  Fawcett  was  removed. 

But  we  have  a  third  type  of  misrepresentation — that  due  to  lack  of 
responsiveness.  Besides  Treasurer  O'Connell  of  Cook  County,  who  re- 
fuses to  show  the  Bureau  of  Public  Efficiency  how  he  is  using  the  tax- 
payers' money  entrusted  to  him,  we  have  an  example  in  Denver  of  the 
most  flagrant  disregard  for  the  will  of  the  voters  and  for  the  law.  Last 
month  the  machine  council  violated  the  state  law  and  the  city  charter 
when  they  ignored  a  petition  signed  by  twenty  thousand  voters  asking  for 
a  special  election  on  the  question  of  commission  government  and  the 
recall.  Two  days  later  Mayor  Speer,  who  had  no  such  autocratic  power, 
ordered  a  gang  of  thugs  to  throw  Assessor  Arnold  bodily  out  of  office. 
Arnold  was  an  elective  official,  but  he  incurred  the  wrath  of  Emperor 
Speer  when  he  refused  to  add  three  mills  to  the  tax  warrants  as  Speer 
had  ordered  to  be  fixed  on  overburdened  taxpayers.  Between  twenty- 
five  and  thirty  thousand  voters  met  in  the  open  and  cold,  because  they 
were  refused  their  own  auditorium,  and  in  their  utter  helplessness,  adopt- 
ed resolutions  of  solemn  protest  against  the  acts  of  the  mayor  and  his 
machine  council.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  people  of  Denver  need  the 
recall. 

We  have  seen  with  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  recall  upon  the  offi- 
cial that  it  will  remove  three  types  of  misrepresentative  officers:  First, 
the  corrupt;  second,  the  incompetent;  third,  the  unresponsive. 

Besides  doing  this  the  recall  will  stimulate  officers  generally  to  have 
a  keener  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  people.  It  is  obvious  that  when 
a  man  succeeds  a  recalled  official  he  will  avoid  the  errors  into  which  his 
predecessor  fell.  As  for  officials  generally, ,  Brand  Whitlock,  mayor  of 
Toledo,  tells  of  a  Toledo  alderman  who  illustrates  the  point.  This  man 
began  his  duties  determined  to  live  up  to  his  platform  of  service  to  the 
voters.     He  had  a  wife  who  was  obsessed  to  do  society,  and  his  deter- 

12 


Debate;:    The  Recall 

mination  grew  less  as  his  debts  grew  larger.  At  the  psychological  mo- 
ment he  was  offered  a  bribe  for  his  vote  in  a  paving  contract.  He  wa- 
vered, but  if  he  had  had  the  sense  of  constant  responsibility  to  the  peo- 
ple which  goes  with  the  recall — this  moral  crutch,  if  you  please, — he 
would  not  have  fallen.  As  it  was,  he  accepted  the  bribe  and  became  a 
puppet  of  the  interests.     He  had  lost  his  sense  of  duty  to  the  people. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  shown  you  that  the  recall  will  enable  all  states 
and  cities  to  correct  misrepresentation  by  giving  the  people  a  corrective 
instrument  which  may  be  used  when  it  should  be  used — and  that  is,  when 
needed.  I  have  shown  you  that  the  recall  will  remove  officials  who  fail 
to  represent,  citing  the  cases  of  Harper  in  Los  Angeles,  Gill  in  Seattle, 
Fawcett  in  Tacoma,  Speer  in  Denver,  and  others;  and  that  it  will  give 
officials  generally  a  keener  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  people. 


LEWIS  M.  SIMES,  SECOND  NEGATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — / 

The  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  are  telling  us  that  the  recall  will 
do  this  good  thing,  that  good  thing  or  the  other  ^ood  thing.  But  they 
cannot  prove  the  affirmative  of  this  question  unless  they  show  that  the 
recall  is  without  dangerous  tendencies.  They  say  the  recall  will  take  a 
bad  man  out  of  office  but  they  give  us  no  assurance  it  will  not  also  take 
out  a  good  man.  And  moreover,  until  they  can  show  that  the  recall  does 
not  make  government  and  business  unstable  as  my  colleague  has  shown 
it  does,  they  cannot  claim  the  question.  The  gentleman  who  just  pre- 
ceded me  says  if  the  women's  vote  recalled  Mayor  Gill  in  Seattle,  good 
for  the  women.  I  agree  with  him,  but  that  does  not  disprove  the  fact 
that  in  Seattle  the  only  thing  that  made  the  recall  work  was  a  change  of 
electorate,  and  the  trouble  with  the  whole  recall  propaganda  is  that  you 
have  the  same  electorate  at  a  recall  election  as  at  a  regular  election. 

Judged  from  the  standpoint  of  the  voter,  I  wish  to  show  how  the 
recall  will  affect  the  efficiency  of  elections. 

Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment,  if  it  will  be  any  satisfaction  to  the 
gentlemen  of  the  affirmative,  that  by  one  fell  stroke  the  political  boss  has 
been  slain,  and  that  in  his  place  we  have  the  honest  composite  citizen, 
always  interested  in  government.  This  is  a  Utopian  condition,  but  wc 
insist  that  even  in  that  situation  the  recall  would  show  tendencies  that 
are  fundamentally  wrong.  It  will  tend  to  give  us  a  result  based  upon 
passion  rather  than  judgment. 

Everyone  agrees  to  the  truism  that  this  government  is  and  should 
be  a  government  by  the  people.     But  too  often  we  arc  led  into  the  eri- 

n 


Debate:     The  Recall 

dent  fallacy  that  it  should  be  a  government  by  the  unrestrained  action 
of  the  temporary  majority  of  the  people.  Indeed,  that  is  exactly  the 
fallacy  upon  which  our  opponents  have  just  been  arguing.  Everyone 
knows  that  there  are  times  of  great  crisis  in  every  city,  state  and  nation 
where  there  is  a  sudden  impulse  of  the  majority  not  founded  upon  sound 
reason.  And  yet,  but  give  the  people  time,  and  their  later  judgment 
upon  the  question  will  be  right.  We  will  admit  that  this  principle  is  true 
with  reference  to  a  person.  '  A  state  or  community  is  but  an  aggregation 
of  persons,  and  the  same  principle  applies  to  it.  To  restrain  this  tem- 
porary impulse  the  people  have  placed  checks  upon  themselves,  in  the 
form  of  written  constitutions,  the  veto  power  of  presidents  and  govern- 
ors, the  legislatures  of  two  houses  instead  of  one.  And  not  the  least 
among  these  restrictions  is  that  which  fixes  a  regular  time  for  selecting 
officers.  This  tends  to  prevent  a  hasty  action  because  the  people  can 
look  forward  with  certainty  to  the  time  of  election  and  can  have  time  to 
form  a  careful  judgment.  But  the  recall  destroys  all  this,  and  forces 
the  voter  to  act  before  he  has  had  time  to  know  and  to  weigh  carefully. 
It  records  the  voter's  impulse  instead  of  his  sober  judgment.  In  other 
words,  it  gives  us  government  by  impulse.  You  may  say  that  there  is  a 
similar  defect  in  the  regular  election  because  a  wave  of  popular  impulse 
might  take  place  at  election  time.  Such  an  evil  occurs  but  rarely,  for 
the  wave  impulse  and  the  election  do  not  often  concur.  But  with  the  re- 
call the  election  takes  place  every  time  there  is  a  popular  impulse. 

History  is  full  of  waves  of  popular  passion  that  were  wrong.  On 
May  27,  1844,  the  first  telegraph  message  was  sent  over  the  first  tele- 
graph line  in  America.  And  when  the  words  "What  hath  God  wrought" 
were  flashed  over  the  wires  between  Baltimore  and  Washington,  the 
world  soon  recognized  the  power  of  the  telegraph  in  modern  civiliza- 
tion. And  yet  when  the  bill  was  introduced  into  Congress  appropriating 
$30,000  for  the  construction  of  the  telegraph  line  the  first  popular  im- 
pulse was  one  of  ridicule  and  distrust.  For  nearly  two  years  the  bill 
hung  fire,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  if  a  recall  had  been  possible  on  Con- 
gressmen the  bill  would  not  have  been  passed  at  that  time.  Months 
afterwards  Congressman  Wallace,  a  former  governor,  a  man  of  great 
ability,  was  defeated  for  re-election  solely  on  his  vote  for  the  telegraph. 
How  many  more  good  men  would  have  been  recalled  if  an  election  could 
have  taken  place  when  the  bill  was  first  before  Congress! 

Judged  by  the  calm  view  of  later  years,  no  one  will  say  that  Andrew 
Johnson  should  have  been  removed  from  office  on  the  impeachment 
charges  brought  against  him.  Yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  if  temporary 
popular  impulse  could  have  acted  through  the  recall  of  senators,  he  would 
have  been  dragged  from  the  presidential  chair. 

14 


1  Debate:     The  Recall 

This  tendency  to  popular  impulse  is  no  idle  dream.     It  is  a  universal  ^ 
characteristic  of  the  race.     And  the  question  is:  do  we  want  it  to  be  crys- 
talized  by  the  recall  into  the  result  of  elections;  or  do  we  not  rather  need 
the  sound  careful  judgment  of  our  voters? 

But  I  have  assumed  that  we  would  have  ideal  conditions.  Taking 
conditions  as  they  are,  will  not  the  recall  be  but  a  new  avenue  of  power 
to  the  political  boss?  A  great  statesman  has  truly  said  that  to  give  the 
people  a  power  they  cannot  exercise  is  to  take  it  from  them.  My  col- 
league has  shown  you  how  the  recall  burdens  the  voter.  Though  he  is 
given  the  power  to  exercise  a  continuous  censorship  over  every  act,  of 
the  officer,  yet  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  no  citizen  who  is  sufficiently 
industrious  to  have  some  business  of  his  own  to  attend  to  will  have  time 
for  that. 

But  the  power  is  there,  and  if  the  honest  citizen  has  not  time  to  use^ 
it  the  political  boss  will.  The  first  thing  the  political  boss  does  is  to 
threaten  the  good  official  with  a  recall  petition.  And  right  here  let  me 
say  that  the  recall  petition  is  one  of  the  weakest  spots  of  the  recall  prop- 
aganda. It  would  be  a  poor  political  boss  who  could  not  get  the  names 
of  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  voters  on  a  petition  if  he  tried.  There  are 
thousands  of  malcontents  in  every  great  city  who  would  sign  any  sort  of 
a  petition  that  called  for  a  change.  And  there  are  thousands  of  other 
people  who  would  sign  a  petition  as  the  easiest  method  of  getting  rid  of 
the  importunate  petitioner  who  comes  to  their  door.  So  easy  is  it  to  get 
signers  to  official  petitions  that  there  is  a  firm  in  Oregon  which  carries 
on  a  lucrative  business  securing  names  for  such  documents  at  the  paltry 
sum  of  one  and  one-half  cents  per  name. 

Once  having  the  power  to  bring  the  recall,  the  boss  can  bring  it  at  a 
time  when  it  is  not  looked  for.  i  And  to  whose  advantage  is  it  to  work  "^ 
m  the  dark,  to  spring  the  unexpected,  to  bring  an  unlooked-for  election ; 
in  other  words,  who  uses  gum-shoe  politics?  Is  it  the  political  boss  or 
the  trusted  statesman  ? ;  To  whose  advantage  is  it  that  there  are  factions 
always  ready  to  oppose  any  administration,  however  good?  To  whose 
advantage  is  it  that  a  good  administration  does  not  have  the  time  or  the 
money  to  maintain  sufficient  political  organization  to  defend  itself  at  any 
moment?  And  there  is  but  one  answer:  the  political  boss.  And  lastly, 
to  whose  advantage  will  the  recall  be?  It  will  be  to  the  advantage  of  the 
political  boss.  The  people  cannot  always  be  watching.  But  the  boss 
who  makes  his  living  by  watching  politics,  will  finally  wear  out  the  people 
by  election  after  election  or  will  take  them  by  surprise  and  will  in  the 
long  run  win. 

Last  September  Mayor  J.  H.  Graham,  of  Wichita,  a  man  who  had 
already  served  the  people  for  one  term,  a  man  who  had  been  known  all 

15 


Debate:     The  Recall 

over  Southern  Kansas  for  his  work  in  law  enforcement,  was  recalled  by 
a  political  boss.  He  was  defeated  before  he  had  held  office  six  months  * 
t^  one  VV.  W.  Minick,  a  notorious  friend  of  blind  tigers,  a  man  who  , 
years  before  had  been  defeated  for  mayor  on  a  strictly  wet  ticket,  and 
who  in  the  regular  election  last  April  did  not  even  dare  to  be  a  candidate. 
He  waited  until  the  people  were  tired  of  politics,  and  the  friends  of  law 
enforcement  were  practically  unorganized.  And  then  he  betrayed  the 
people  and  disgraced  an  honest  officer  by  means  of  the  recall.  That  the 
people  were  tired  out  and  were  taken  unawares  is  shown  by  the  vote  at 
the  recall  election  which  was  but  eighty  per  cent  of  that  cast  at  the  regu- 
lar election.  The  inevitable  tendencies  of  the  recall  were  here  revealed. 
And  it  was  but  a  proof  of  the  proposition  that  wherever  the  political 
boss  can  continue  to  bring  elections,  he  will  hold  out  longer  than  the 
citizen  and  the  advantage  will  eventually  be  in  his  favor. 

The  affirmative  cannot  claim  that  because  the  recall  has  worked  in 
a  few  cases  it  is  therefore  fundamentally  right.  They  must  show  that 
k  will  not  possess  these  dangerous  tendencies.  Yet  as  I  have  shown, 
first,  it  will  tend  to  give  us  government  by  impulse  instead  of  judgment ; 
and  second,  it  will  open  a  new  avenue  of  power  for  the  political  boss; 
and  for  these  reasons  we  insist  that  the  recall  should  not  be  adopted. 


GEORGE  N.  FOSTER,  THIRD  AFFIRMATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — 

The  negative  read  from  the  last  issue  of  the  Chicago  Record-Herald 
that  four  city  officials  were  removed  today  by  the  Civil  Service  Commis- 
sioa  of  Chicago.  They  forgot  to  tell  you  that  these  were  appointive 
officers  placed  there  by  the  Commission,  while  the  Commission  has  no 
coi^trol  over  elective  officials.  This  shows  that  as  to  elective  officials  the 
people  should  have  a  power  of  removal. 

They  tell  us  that  under  the  recall  the  officials  will  become  mere  pup- 
•pets  and  figure-heads — in  other  words,  that  the  recall  will  take  all  discre- 
^i  from  them.  Their  theory  is  that  we  must  either  give  officials  abso- 
lute power  to  do  just  as  they  please  or  take  all  their  discretion  away.  We 
don't  have  to  do  either.  There  are  a  thousand  and  one  things  an  official 
can  do  as  he  pleases  under  the  recall  and  the  people  do  not  object,  but 
there  are  a  few  fundamental  things  the  people  require,  and  they  are  hon- 
esty, competency  and  a  performance  of  the  general  policies  for  which  he 
was  elected.  'Hierefore,  the  theory  that  an  officer  must  either  be  abso- 
lute master  over  the  people  or  else  have  no  discretion  whatever  cannot 
stanf. 


.*/ 


16 


Debate:     The  Recall 

My  colleague  has  shown  that  in  our  present  municipal  and  state  gov- 
ernments we  have  misrepresentation  and  that  the  people  are  helpless 
to  remedy  this  until  the  expiration  of  a  term  of  office.  My  second  col- 
league has  shown  that  the  recall  gives  the  people  power  to  remove  an 
official  who  violates  his  trust  to  the  people  and  put  in  his  place  a  better 
man;  and  that  it  will  stimulate  a  keener  sense  of  duty  on  the  part  of 
officials  generally. 

But  the  recall  will  go  further  than  the  official.  It  will  have  a  good 
effect  upon  the  people:  (1)  It  will  sustain  the  interest  of  the  voters; 
(2)  the  people  will  bring  out  good  men;  (3)  the  people  will  hold  the 
officials  to  their  duty;  (4)  and  the  recall  will  educate  the  voters. 

It  will  sustain  the  interest  of  the  voters  because  the  voters  will  have 
direct  responsibilities  throughout  the  year.  Opportunity  means  interest. 
At  the  general  elections  voters  are  interested  because  given  an  opportu- 
nity. But  now,  when  a  man  does  his  best  at  the  general  election  he 
cannot  help  government  directly  for  at  least  one  year,  perhaps  two  or 
four  years.  With  the  recall  he  will  be  able  to  feel  his  responsibility 
throughout  the  year.  He  will  not  be  merely  a  citizen  on  election  day, 
but  a  citizen  with  direct  responsibility  all  the  time.  Therefore,  the  recall 
will  sustain  the  interest  of  the  voters. 

It  will  cause  the  people  to  bring  out  good  men  at  recall  elections. 
Under  the  recall  bad  motives  for  entering  politics  will  be  removed.  They 
will  be  removed  because  they  cannot  be  expres.sed  or  carried  out  in 
administration.  Now,  pre-election  promises  may  be  one  thing  and  ad- 
ministration another,  but  under  the  recall  there  must  be  a  substantial 
performance  of  those  promises  or  the  officer  is  liable  to  be  recalled. 

Beyond  bad  motives  being  eliminated,  there  will  be  a  stimulus  for 
good  men  to  be  brought  out.  The  people  will  induce  a  good  man  to 
come  out  in  sharp  contrast  to  their  mistake.  The  people  will  show  their 
colors,  and  a  stimulus  stronger  than  at  any  general  election  will  cause 
the  people  to  meet  the  specific  need  with  a  good  man. 

For  example:  A.  C.  Harper,  mayor  of  Los  Angeles,  was  opposed 
by  the  Municipal  League  of  that  city,  which  public  spirited  organization 
conducted  the  campaign  and  election  that  got  rid  of  him.  From  its 
membership  the  people  brought  forth  a  leader,  George  Alexander,  who 
fearlessly  attacked  the  administration. 

Mayor  Harper  was  known  to  be  corrupt  before  the  recall  was 
l)rought,  but  when  about  to  mismanage  the  Orange  River  Power  Project 
involving  the  expenditure  of  thirty  millions  of  the  people's  money  the 
storm  broke  and  he  was  recalled.  Harper  sneaked  out  of  the  city  eleven 
days  before  the  election,  afraid  to  meet  his  accusers  face  to  face  at  the 
l>allot  box.    George  Alexander,  the  successor,  served  the  people  well — 

17 


Debate:     The  Recall 

was  renominated  and  re-elected,  and  saved  the  people's  money  from  graft 
and  corruption.  Here  is  a  concrete  instance  where  the  people  brought 
out  a  good  man  at  a  recall  election. 

Another  instance  is  that  of  Mayor  Fawcett,  of  Tacoma,  who  was  re- . 
called  last  spring  on  a  clear  charge  of  non-enforcement  of  the  law.     A  - 
Public  Welfare  League  was  formed  to  rid  the  city  of  vice  and  corruption, 
and  from  the  membership  of  this  league  the  people  got  their  desired 
leader — Mr.  Seymour,  a  prominent  man,  a  graduate  of  Williams  College, 
and  a  man  standing  above  reproach  for  clean  politics.     Mayor  Seymour  - 
has  served  a  satisfactory  term  and  upon  being  urged  has  consented  to  run 
for  a  second  term.     Here  we  have  another  concrete  instance  where  the 
people  at  a  recall  election  brought  out  a  good  man. 

The  people  will  do  more  than  bring  out  good  men;  they  will  hold 
officials  to  their  duty.  This  potential  power  will  make  the  actual  opera- 
tion of  the  recall  seldom  necessary. 

If  officers  are  honest  and  competent  there  is  no  need  for  removal, 
but  bad  officials  will  get  into  politics ;  even  the  gentlemen  from  Michigan 
will  admit  this.  I  believe  that  they  will  also  admit  that  very  often  this 
official  cannot  be  discovered  until  seated.  These  two  propositions  granted, 
it  follows  inevitably  that  any  system  of  representative  government  whicli 
does  not  provide  an  effective  system  of  removal  is  lacking  and  opens  the 
door  for  misrepresentation  by  bad  officials. 

Shall  we  allow  the  officer  to' feel  that  he  is  a  czar  in  his  sphere  or 
shall  we  make  him  feel  his  duty  to  the  people? 

Shall  we  allow  an  officer  to  go  on  one,  two,  three,  and  even  four  years 
more  powerful  than  his  master,  diverting  public  funds,  wasting  the  peo- 
ple's money,  and  aiding  the  special  interests  in  more  strategic  "grips"  and 
"holds"  upon  government  from  which  it  may  not  recover  for  a  decade  or 
a  generation? 

This  need  of  responsiveness  is  not  theory.     The  people  have  held   ' 
officials  to  their  duty,  of  which  we  have  many  examples.     The  most 
notable  is  given  of  the  Los  Angeles  Council.     The  Municipal  League 
Proceedings  for  1909  tells  us  that  the  city  council  of  Los  Angeles  was 
about  to  let  a  street  railway  franchise  worth  at  least  one  million  dollars 
to  the  city,  without  a  penny's  compensation  to  the  city.     A  recall  was 
agitated,  for  the  people  soon  discovered  the  scheme  and  the  council  found  • 
that  they  could  not  do  such  flagrant  wrong  and  keep  their  seats  because 
of  the  recall.     Here  is  a  concrete  instance  where  the  people  held  the  • 
officials  to  their  duty  through  the  potential  power  of  the  recall  and  saved 
the  people  of  Los  Angeles  one  million  dollars. 

Therefore,  the  recall  causes  the  people  to  hold  officials  to  their  duty^ 

18 


Debate:     The  Recall 

Lastly,  the  recall  educates  the  voters.     It  educates  them  to  better  dis-  •> 
criminate  between  policies,  measures  and  men. 

The  best  instance  of  the  ability  of  the  voters  to  discriminate  is  that ' 
of  Tacoma  in  1911  when  four  of  the  commissioners  were  up  for  recall. 

Commissioner  Roys  of  Public  Safety  was  recalled  by  more  than  a 
three  thousand  majority  on  a  charge  of  inefficiency  and  non-enforcement 
of  the  law.     Commissioner  Lawson,  of  Light  and  Water,  was  recalled ' 
on  a  clear  charge  of  graft.  , 

At  the  same  election,  however,  to  show  how  the  people  discriminate, 
Commissioner  Freeland,  of  Finance,  was  retained  by  a  two  thousand 
majority  and  Commissioner  Wood,  of  Public  Works,  by  a  six  thousand 
majority. 

How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  that  Roys  was  recalled  by  a  three  ' 
thousand  majority  and  Wood  retained  by  a  six  thousand  majority  if  you 
deny  that  the  people  discriminate  at  recall  elections? 

We  beheve  this  instance  shows  that  the  people  are  not  carried  away 
by  passion  and  prejudice,  but  that  they  are  sober  and  deliberate  at  recall 
elections  and  these  special  issues  thus  handled  educate  the  voters  to  dis- 
criminate between  measures,  politics  and  men. 

We  do  not  claim  for  the  recall  a  complete  remedy  for  all  our  ills ;  we 
do  not  claim  that  it  will  revamp  human  nature — that  it  is  a  heaven-born 
scheme,  but  we  do  claim  that  it  gives  the  voter  a  chance  to  remove  an 
official  who  violates  his  trust  before  the  expiration  of  his  term;  that  the 
people  get  a  better  man  in  his  place;  that  the  recall  stimulates  a  keener 
sense  of  duty  on  the  part  of  officials  generally,  and  that  the  recall  has  a 
good  eflfect  upon  the  people  by  sustaining  their  interest,  bringing  out  good 
men,  holding  officials  to  duty,  and  educating  the  people;  and  these  we 
believe  are  some  of  the  fundamental  needs  of  self-government. 


FRANK  D.  JONES,  THIRD  NEGATIVE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Honorable  Judges,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — 

It  must  be  evident  to  everyone  at  this  point  that  the  recall  in  its 
operation  vitally  concerns  three  factors, — the  government,  the  voter,  and 
the  official.  The  first  speaker  for  Chicago  therefore  showed  that  the 
recall  produces  instability  in  government  which  has  a  disastrous  effect 
upon  business  conditions.  The  second  speaker  showed  it  forces  the 
voter  to  a  decision  based  upon  impulse  and  is  rapidly  becoming  an 
effective  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  political  boss.  It  will  be  my  pur- 
pose to  point  out  the  undesirability  of  the  recall  viewed  in  its  relation  to 
the  official  by  showing,  first,  that  it  deters  good  men  from  running  for 

19 


Debate:     The  Recall 

office ;  second,  that  it  destroys  the  efficiency  of  the  representative  in  office, 
and  finally,  that  it  is  absolutely  unjust  to  the  office-holder. 

In  the  first  place,  the  recall  deters  good  men  from  running  for  office. 
V      It  does  this  because  the  uncertainty  of  tenure  makes  the  office  unattrac- 
tive.    Admittedly  one  of  the  greatest  evils  of  our  government  is  that 
our  offices  are  not  attractive  enough  to  invite  the  services  of  the  highest 
tyj>e  of  men.     The  recall  by  destroying  the  certainty  of  tenure  simply 
aggravates  this  evil.     Would  you  care  to  run  for  office  when  after  you 
had  arranged  your  business  aflFairs  and  had  been  elected,  twenty-five  per 
cent  of  the  voters  might  six  months  later  cause  your  removal  and  dis- 
grace, perhaps  without  cause?     The  tendency  of  the  recall  to  drive  good 
men  from  the  field  may  already  be  seen  in  the  election  of  such  men  as  Hi 
Gill  and  A.  C.  Harper,  where  the  recall  is  in  operation.     Still  more  may 
it  be  noted  in  the  recall  elections  of  these  same  two  men,  where  in  the 
face  of  unspeakable  conditions  in  city  government,  when  you  would  think 
many  men  would  offer  themselves  to  help  redeem  the  good  name  of  their 
city,  it  was  almost  impossible  to  secure  candidates  because  of  the  fear 
that  the  recall  would  be  invoked  in  turn  against  them.     In  Los  Angeles,' 
says  the  National  Municipal  League  Proceedings  of  1909,  "A  large  num-' 
ber  of  prominent  men  were  invited  to  run  for  office  but  in  every  case  they 
politely  but  firmly  refused."     Finally  an   old  man   named  Alexander,  . 
past  the  allotted  age  of  three  score  and  ten,  who  had  been  holding  small  * 
political  jobs  for  years,  consented  to  run  and  was  elected.     Only  three- 
months  ago  he  was  repudiated  at  the  primaries,  his  only  opponent,  a  . 
Socialist  of  petty  attainments,  receiving  a  majority  of  two  thousand. 
Had  it  not  been  for  the  admission  of  women  to  suflFrage  before  the  final 
election,  Mr.  Lee,  Alexander's  own  campaign  manager,  the  day  following 
the  election  publicly  admitted  Alexander  would  not  have  been  elected. 

In  Seattle,  the  same  results  occurred.     Finally  George  Dilling  con-   . 
sented  to  run;  now,  he  faces  a  recall  election.     "And  the  astonishing   , 
feature  of  the  situation,"  says  the  Ohio  Journal  of  Commerce,  "is  that 
the  man  most  likely  to  be  elected  in  his  place  is  Hiram  C.  Gill,  whom  the 
preceding  recall  put  out  of  the  same  office!"     Such  conditions  with  their 
uncertainty  and  possibilities  of  disgrace  are  bound  to  drive  competent 
men  from  the  political  field. 
V  In  the  second  place,  the  recall  destroys  the  efficiency  of  the  man  in 

office.  The  gentlemen  tell  you  the  recall  gives  us  a  continuous  control 
over  the  acts  of  the  official.  In  so  doing  they  admit  it  takes  away  his 
independence.  They  want  our  official  to  be  guided  continuously  by 
public  opinion,  though  on  any  close  question  of  general  interest  the  most 
expert  psychologist  cannot  determine  what  popular  opinion  is  without  a 
vote.    They  want  our  officers  to  spend  thdr  time  guessing  what  we  want 


DEBATE :     The  Recall 

rather  than  in  studying  the  problems  of  government  and  deciding  after 
such  study  what  is  for  our  best  interest.  Such  a  poHcy  apphed  to  two 
types  of  officials  in  particular  would  be  harmful. 

First,  there  is  the  officer  concerned  with  general  constructive  policies. 
The  governor,  the  legislator,  the  mayor  are  of  this  type.  Efficient  gov- 
ernment demands  that  they  look  to  the  future  as  well  as  the  present,  but 
what  official  would  care  to  attempt  to  carry  out  constructive  program^s 
with  the  prospect  that  some  single  necessary,  but  unpopular  phase  of  it, 
would  probably  result  in  his  recall?  For  example,  in  Huron,  S.  Dak.,  in 
pursuance  of  a  business-like  policy,  the  mayor  and  commissioners  pro- 
vided for  a  sinking  fund  to  meet  the  bonded  indebtedness,  resulting  in  a 
slight  increase  in  taxes.  Because  of  this  common-sense  action,  they  had 
to  face  the  strain  and  expense  of  a  recall  election.  Under  the  recall,  it 
is  the  official  who  does  nothing,  the  man  who  is  negatively  harmless,  who 
is  safe.  Where  would  a  large  city  like  Chicago  be  in  a  few  years  under 
such  a  policy?  Yet  the  gentlemen  of  Northwestern  would  adopt  this 
system  not  only  in  Chicago,  but  in  our  towns,  cities  and  states  generally. 

Again,  the  recall  would  have  a  harmful  effect  upon  the  ministerial 
officer.  Of  this  type  are  the  secretary  of  state,  the  state  auditor,  mem- 
bers of  the  board  of  education,  tax  assessors  and  a  host  of  similar  offi- 
cers. Their  duties  are  purely  of  a  technical  nature.  Politics  and  effi- 
ciency in  such  positions  are  diametrically  opposed.  Take  for  example  a 
tax  assessor ;  it  is  the  proper  performance  of  his  duty  that  makes  him 
unpopular.  Yet,  the  gentlemen  would  subject  this  type  of  officer  to  a 
continuous  political  control. 

The  gentlemen  may  tell  you  the  voters  will  not  exercise  the  recall  on 
such  Tfiinisterial  officers,  but  the  fact  remains  they  already  have  in  the 
short  history  of  the  recall.  In  Dallas,  Texas,  two  members  of  the  board 
of  education  were  removed  because  they  would  not  allow  one  or  two 
prominent  politicians  to  dictate  their  appointments  on  the  teaching  staff. 
The  recall,  by  taking  away  the  independence  and  discretion  of  these  two 
types  of  officials,  destroys  their  efficiency. 

Finally,  the  recall  is  unjust  to  the  official. 

It  is  unjust  because  it  places  an  improper  weapon  in  the  hands  of  his 
political  opponents,  because  six  months  after  he  enters  office  he  faces 
the  probability  of  being  ignominiously  recalled  when  his  work  is  on  pre- 
mature trial  and  before  it  can  be  tested.  Thus  in  Wichita,  Kansas, 
Mayor  Graham  was  elected  to  office  as  a  dry  candidate,  but  immediately 
following  his  election,  he  had  to  face  a  recall  election  and  was  removed, 
the  movement  being  headed  by  a  so-called  Law  and  Order  League,  later 
shown  to  be  financed  by  Kansas  City  liquor  interests. 

The  recall  is  unjust  to  the  official  because  it  disgraces  him.     Even  if 

21 


Debate:     The  Recai^l 

he  is  not  recalled  the  alleged  reasons  for  his  recall  are  heralded  over  the 
country  and  the  truth  never  overtakes  the  lie.  Then,  too,  he  goes  to  the 
election  not  as  our  candidates  do  at  the  general  election,  on  the  basis  of 
past  services  well  performed,  but  with  his  motives  impugned,  his  character 
besmirched,  fighting  for  the  office  simply  to  save  his  honor. 

The  recall  is  unjust  because  it  often  takes  one  act  from  an  official's 
career  and  makes  that  a  basis  for  his  recall.  For  example,  the  recall  has 
just  been  invoked  against  Judge  John  S.  Coke  of  Oregon,  because,  the 
petitioners  assert,  his  instructions  in  one  murder  trial  were  too  liberal. 
If  the  voters  will  bring  the  recall  against  a  judge  on  such  a  petty  ground, 
what  won't  they  do  when  it  is  applied  to  the  elective  officers  under  discus- 
sion tonight?  I  ask  the  gentlemen,  regardless  of  the  outcome  of  the  elec- 
tion, is  it  fair  to  force  the  strain  and  expense  of  a  second  election  upon 
an  official  upon  such  petty  grounds  ? 

Finally,  the  recall  is  unjust  to  the  official  because  it  subjects  him  to  a 
decision  based  upon  momentary  passion.  The  recall  election,  unlike  our 
general  election,  takes  place  on  short  notice  and  at  unexpected  times. 
And  is  there  a  calm  judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  candidates?  No,  far 
from  that!  Often  it  is  not  a  question  of  his  efficiency  or  inefficiency  but 
of  the  popularity  of  the  opposing  candidate.  Always  the  result  is  deter- 
mined not  by  the  competency  of  the  official  but  by  the  feeling,  the  popular 
impulse  at  that  particular  moment.  And  upon  such  a  basis  depends  his 
vindication  or  disgrace! 

By  placing  an  improper  weapon  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  by  the 
disgrace  attached  to  its  operation,  whether  successful  or  not,  by  its  one- 
sided view  of  his  career,  and  by  the  conditions  under  which  the  election 
takes  place,  the  recall  is  wholly  unjust  to  the  official. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  pointed  out  that  the  recall  creates  the  great- 
est instability  in  government,  demoralizing  economic  conditions;  that  it 
forces  the  voter  to  a  decision  based  upon  impulse  rather  than  reason  and  is 
rapidly  becoming  an  effective  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  political  boss. 
We  have  further  shown  that  the  recall  not  only  deters  good  men  from 
running  for  office,  but  also  destroys  the  efficiency  of  the  constructive  and 
ministerial  officer.  Finally,  we  have  shown  that  it  is  wholly  unjust  in  its 
application  to  the  official.  We  do  not  believe  that  any  American  audience 
desires  the  adoption  of  an  agency  which  has  such  unlimited  possibilities 
for  harm  and  which  is  so  unfair  in  its  spirit.  Upon  these  grounds,  there- 
fore, we  urge  that  the  recall  as  outlined  in  the  question  under  discussion 
is  unworthy  of  our  adoption. 


22 


The  Rebuttal 


Mr.  Robinson,  First  Negative. 

In  order  to  prove  that  the  recall  should  be  adopted  the  affirmative 
has  shown  that  there  is  some  misrepresentation  in  our  government.  They 
maintain  that  the  recall  will  cure  the  defect,  first,  because  it  has  a  power- 
ful deterrent  effect  on  the  official.  However,  in  the  same  breath  in 
which  they  explained  how  powerful  this  deterrent  effect  would  be,  they 
told  you  of  the  corrupt  practices  of  Councilman  Davenport,  Mayor  Har- 
per, Hy  Gill  and  Mayor  Fawcett.  All  these  men  were  serving  under  the 
recall,  and  from  the  affirmative's  view-point  it  certainly  didn't  have  any 
deterrent  effect  on  them.  They  might  also  have  told  you  that  the  recall 
didn't  have  any  deterrent  effect  on  the  legislators  in  Oregon,  because  they 
have  been  notoriously  corrupt,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  about  sixty 
measures  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  during  the  past  six  years. 
Surely,  gentlemen,  you  don't  mean  to  tell  us  that  the  recall  has  had  a 
deterrent  effect  in  these  places  where  it  has  been  in  operation.  And  you 
have  given  us  no  reason  why  its  operation  would  be  different  in  the  future 
than  in  the  past. 

The  second  proposition  that  the  affirmative  have  attempted  to  estab- 
lish is  that  the  recall  has  been  successful  in  three  or  four  places,  therefore, 
its  operation  will  always  prove  successful.  We  submit,  that  even  if  the 
recall  has  worked  with  apparent  success  a  few  times  it  is  not  suffixient 
proof  that  it  should  be  adopted,  because  it  has  never  been  used  on  any 
state  official,  and  we  have  shown  more  times  where  it  has  been  misused, 
than  the  affirmative  have  claimed  for  its  right  use.  However,  a  close 
examination  of  the  cases  on  which  the  affirmative  base  their  contention 
will  show  that  the  recall  was  not  even  successful  on  those  occasions. 

First :  In  the  case  of  Mayor  Harper,  impeachment  proceedings 
would  have  reached  the  same  result.  Second :  Take  the  case  of  Council- 
man Davenport  in  the  same  city.  We  wish  to  inform  the  gentlemen  that 
in  order  to  grant  that  corrupt  printing  contract,  it  would  have  taken  at 
least  eighteen  other  votes  besides  Davenport's,  Now,  why  in  all  justice 
didn't  they  recall  the  other  eighteen  councilmen?  Is  this  an  example  of 
the  justice  and  wisdom  of  the  recall  ?  Is  it  right  to  pick  one  man  out  of 
nineteen  guilty  ones  and  put  the  mark  of  disgrace  on  him  and  let  all  the 
others  go  scot  free?  We  wish  also  to  state  that  the  man  who  succeeded 
Davenport  was  fully  as  corrupt  as  he,  and  was  threatened  with  a  recall 

23 


Debate:     The  Recall 

election  before  he  had  been  in  office  many  months.  Therefore,  the  recall 
is  not  a  success  in  Los  Angeles. 

In  Seattle  between  the  time  of  the  general  election  and  the  recall 
election  the  women  had  been  given  their  suffrage,  and  even  the  most  en- 
thusiastic promoters  of  the  recall,  such  as  Senator  Bourne,  admit  that  it 
was  the  women  who  recalled  Hy  Gill,  and  if  the  women  had  not  been 
given  their  suffrage  Gill  would  still  have  been  mayor  of  Seattle. 

In  Tacoma  it  is  impossible  to  tell  just  what  the  issues  were.  Mr. 
Gilbertson  in  Beard's  Digest  of  Short  Charters,  says  that  the  recall  had 
its  inception  in  the  labor  question,  that  Mr.  Fawcett  refused  to  hire  only 
union  men,  and  therefore  the  labor  unions  started  a  petition  of  recall. 
The  Outlook  says  that  his  recall  was  due  to  petty  politics.  Congressman 
Crumpacker,  of  Indiana,  in  a  speech  in  Congress  maintained  that  the 
mayor  of  Tacoma  was  recalled  because  he  stopped  a  prize  fight.  In  the 
midst  of  all  this  confusion  it  is  impossible  to  tell  just  what  the  issues 
were  in  Tacoma. 

Honorable  Judges,  the  affirmative  has  maintained  that  we  should 
adopt  the  recall  because  it  has  been  successful  and  have  cited  us  these 
examples  to  prove  its  success.  We  wish  to  submit  to  your  judgment,  do 
such  examples  as  these  prove  that  we  should  adopt  the  recall?  What 
have  they  to  say  about  the  instability  resulting  from  frequent  elections  at 
uncertain  times?  If  the  recall  is  so  good,  why  did  the  people  of  Wichita 
and  Seattle  protest  against  further  use  of  the  recall  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  hurting  business  ? 


Mr.  Jennings,  First  Aflfirmative. 

The  gentlemen  on  the  negative  ask,  "What  would  we  do  with  the 
recall  in  Chicago  ?"  We  bite ;  what  would  we  do  ?  We  would  use  it  to 
clean  up  our  city  just  as  some  of  our  more  fortunate  sister  cities  in  the 
West  are  doing.  We  would  jerk  Peter  Bartzen  out  of  office  so  quick 
that  he  wouldn't  know  how  it  happened.  We  would  make  the  Treasurer 
of  Cook  County  open  his  books  to  the  public  or  we  would  put  a  man  in 
his  place  that  would  show  us  what  he  was  doing  with  the  people's  money. 
We  would  hold  a  club  over  our  mayor's  head  so  that  he  would  not  dare 
let  it  be  known  that  on  New  Year's  Eve  the  city  would  be  wide  open  until 
three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  These  are  some  of  the  first  things  that  we 
would  do  with  the  recall  in  Chicago. 

The  gentlemen  have  advanced  some  theoretical  arguments  against  the 
recall,  backed  up  by  a  few  specific  instances  where  they  have  tried  to  show 
that  the  recall  has  had  harmful  effects.  We  admit  that  there  are  academic 
arguments  against  the  recall.     Woodrow  Wilson  as  Professor  of  Political 

24 


Debate:     The  Recall 

Science  opposed  the  recall  because  of  these  objections,  but  Governor  Wil- 
son as  a  practical  statesman  favors  the  recall  because,  as  he  says,  "in 
spite  of  all  these  objections  it  works."  Let  us  briefly  notice  the  cases 
where  the  gentlemen  from  Michigan  say  the  recall  has  had  a  harmful 
effect.  They  cite  the  cases  of  Councilmen  Davenport  and  Mayor  Harper 
•of  Los  Angeles.  Davenport  is  a  notoriously  corrupt  man  who  voted  for 
a  paper  contract  l^c.  higher  than  customary.  Mayor  Harper  was  re- 
moved because  he  allowed  the  city  to  run  wide  open.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  very  best  evidence  of  the  success  of  the  recall  in  Los  Angeles  is  the 
fact  that  the  results  of  the  recall  were  so  satisfactory  that  the  people  of 
the  entire  state  of  CaHfornia  adopted  the  recall  as  a  state- wide  measure. 

The  gentlemen  from  Michigan  next  cite  the  case  of  Tacoma,  where 
they  say  the  mayor  was  removed  for  preventing  a  prize  fight.  The 
Outlook  for  August,  1911,  after  a  thorough  investigation,  states  that  the 
Mayor  of  Tacoma  was  removed  because  of  failure  to  carry  out  the  city's 
laws. 

In  Seattle  they  say  that  the  women's  vote  turned  out  a  corrupt  mayor. 
Detective  Burns,  who  was  on  the  case,  states  that  Seattle  was  the  rotten- 
est  city  in  the  United  States  before  the  operation  of  the  recall,  while  now 
it  is  one  of  the  cleanest.  Because  the  women  with  the  aid  of  the  recall 
can  clean  up  our  cities  is  that  anything  against  the  recall  ?  Remember,  it 
was  the  women  plus  the  recall,  and  without  the  recall  the  women  could 
have  done  nothing.  They  cite  the  case  of  Huron,  S.  D.,  where  they  say 
the  mayor  was  hindered  in  carrying  out  his  policy.  The  fact  is  that  the 
affairs  of  the  city  government  were  being  put  on  an  entirely  new  basis. 
Some  dissatisfied  people  started  the  recall.  The  largest  vote  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  city  turned  out  and  gave  the  administration  a  large  majority. 
This  was  a  vote  of  confidence  and  the  officials  went  back  to  carry  out 
their  business-like  administration  absolutely  convinced  that  the  people 
were  standing  back  of  them.  The  only  other  instance  that  was  cited  was 
that  of  Wichita.  But  in  this  case  we  find  Congressman  Murdock,  one  of 
the  cleanest  and  best  statesmen  of  the  Southwest,  through  his  official 
paper,  the  Wichita  Bagle,  favoring  the  recall  of  that  mayor.  Out  of  the 
25  or  30  instances  where  the  recall  has  been  used  these  are  the  best 
examples  of  the  "misuse"  of  the  recall  which  the  gentlmen  can  cite. 

They  tell  us  that  the  recall  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  our  well  estab- 
lished institutions;  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  representative, 
government.  Where  have  we  got  representative  government  to  destroy  ? 
Is  it  representative  government  when  officials  are  picking  our  pockets  or 
sitting  back  in  their  office  chairs  with  their  feet  cocked  up  on  their  tables 
doing  absolutely  nothing?  If  this  is  the  kind  of  representative  govern- 
ment the  gentlemen  are  talking  about,  we  agree  with  them  that  the  recall 

25 


Debate:     The  Recall 

will  destroy  it.  The  recall  will  not  destroy  true  representative  govern- 
ment, but  restore  it.  They  accuse  us  of  being  unnecessarily  alarmed  about 
the  situation.  They  tell  us  to  just  be  quiet,  everything  will  work  out  all 
right.  This  has  been  the  cry  of  the  reactionary  in  every  age.  Isn't  it 
time  that  some  one  got  a  little  worked  up  over  the  disgraceful  situation 
that  exists  in  our  government  ? 


Mr.  Simes,  Second  Negative. 

The  gentleman  who  just  sat  down  concluded  by  asking  us  to  explain 
what  we  should  do  with  various  classes  of  misrepresentation.  Now  we 
would  remind  the  gentleman  that  the  question  for  the  evening  is  not: 
What  will  we  do  about  misrepresentation,  but  will  the  recall  solve  the 
problem  ?  The  first  speaker  of  the  affirmative  argued  somewhat  like  this : 
Impeachment  and  criminal  proceedings  will  not  solve  the  problem,  there- 
fore, the  recall  will  solve  the  problem.  It  seems  to  me  the  gentleman 
slipped  a  cog  in  his  logic  there. 

Our  first  opponent  began  by  saying  that  he  refused  to  argue  on  any 
administrative  details  of  the  recall,  that  he  will  not  defend  any  particular 
set  of  details.  And  yet,  he  immediately  argues  that  impeachment  will 
not  work  because  of  a  peculiarity  of  the  law  in  Nebraska,  or  in  some  other 
particular  locality.  If  you  do  not  argue  the  thing  on  administrative  de- 
tails you  cannot  bring  those  charges  against  impeachment. 

The  gentleman  read  at  length  the  charges  against  Mayor  Graham  of 
Wichita.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  those  charges  prove  nothing.  The 
man  who  files  the  charges  is  not  required  to  vouch  for  them  but  merely 
to  say  he  honestly  believes  they  are  true.  The  gentlemen  have  argued 
that  Mayor  Fawcett  of  Tacoma  should  have  been  removed.  We  agree 
that  the  man  put  in  his  place,  Mayor  Seymour,  was  a  good  officer.  Yet 
just  last  Saturday  a  recall  petition  was  filed  against  him  charging  him  with 
almost  every  accusation  in  the  catalogue.  The  gentlemen  have  referred 
to  Seattle.  But  the  recent  recall  petition  which  was  filed  for  the  second 
time  against  Councilmen  Blaine  and  Wardell  was  declared  by  Mayor 
Dilling  to  be  a  positive  outrage. 

The  gentlemen  have  named  a  large  number  of  cities  where  there  was 
a  recall  election  and  good  officers  were  not  removed.  It  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  unfair  to  those  officers  to  make  them  go  to  the  expense  of  that  cam- 
paign. Some  time  ago  Ex-Governor  Hughes  of  New  York,  one  of  the 
greatest  statesmen  of  the  country,  said  he  could  not  run  for  office  again 
because  he  could  not  afford  it.     Under  the  recall  it  would  take  just  six 

26 


DEBATE:     The  Recall 

months  and  two  recalls  for  the  boss  to  put  Hughes  out  of  business  and 
break  his  pocketbook. 

The  recall  burdens  the  voter  with  a  power  he  cannot  use  intelligently. 
It  puts  the  political  boss  into  a  vantage  point  from  which  he  can  wear  out 
the  voter,  bully  the  official,  and  pocket  the  proceeds. 


Mr.  Mullins,  Second  Afl&nnative. 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  recall  will  mean  a  government  by  a  mi- 
nority. Why,  no  minority  can  unseat  an  officer.  The  same  forms  and 
policies  of  ordinary  elections  control  recall  elections.  It  takes  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  to  unseat  an  official.  No  example  can  be  cited  where  an 
officer  was  recalled  by  a  minority. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  negative  tell  us  that  the  recall  costs ;  that  one 
recall  election  cost  the  voters  sixteen  thousand  dollars.  What  if  it  does 
cost  ?  We  expect  to  pay  for  something  which  means  such  a  saving.  As 
for  cost,  how  much  have  our  corrupt  officers  cost  us  in  the  past?  How 
much  have  the  cities  and  states  of  America  lost  from  misappropriation 
and  misuse  of  funds  by  officials?  We  have  lost  so  much  that  our  very 
political  existence  is  remarkable.  It  is  like  a  remark  which  Dr.  Samuel 
Johnson  made  with  regard  to  the  dancing  of  a  dog.  He  did  not  remark 
upon  the  awkwardness  of  the  dog  but  marveled  rather  that  the  dog  could 
"dance  at  all."  It  is  only  our  stupendous  wealth  which  has  enabled  us  to 
bear  up  at  all. 

The  negative  fear  the  "boss"  will  abuse  the  recall.  Then  why  does 
the  boss  fight  the  movement  so  bitterly?  Why  did  the  boss  contest  the 
validity  of  the  recall  through  the  supreme  court  of  California?  Why 
does  Senator  Lorimer  make  stump  speeches  all  over  Illinois  against  the 
recall  ?  Why  does  the  boss  oppose  the  calling  of  a  recall  election  in  Den- 
ver today?  The  boss  can  hardly  have  any  more  power  than  he  has  had 
in  America.  The  handwriting  of  the  boss  has  been  upon  the  walls  of  our 
political  meetings  for  years.  He  fights  the  recall  because  he  knows  it 
is  a  non-partisan,  corrective  instrument  which  will  result  in  his  overthrow. 

The  negative  argue  that  our  courts  are  sufficient  to  remove  officers. 
The  gentlemen  acknowledge  corruption  and  then  say  that  the  courts  can 
deal  with  the  situation.  The  courts  have  not  done  this.  In  but  few 
states  are  they  authorized  to  remove  an  officer  for  anything  except  dis- 
honesty. Nowhere  has  the  court  been  at  all  active  in  performing  this 
function. 

We  would  give  to  the  people  who  elect  a  man  the  power  to  correct 
the  mistake  they  may  make  at  election  time.     The  negative  say  that  when 

27 


Debate:     The  Recall 

we  elect  a  man  we  should  keep  him  for  his  term.  Our  tendency  is  toward 
longer  terms.  Yet  if  the  people  err,  they  shall  not  be  allowed  to  correct 
their  error.  They  must  keep  their  selection,  however  bad,  for  two  or 
four  years,  revere  him,  give  him  absolute  license.  We  believe  that  the 
people  should  be  allowed  to  correct  their  own  mistakes  and  to  checkmate 
the  boss;  and  we  urge  the  adoption  of  the  recall  which  will  give  the 
people  this  power. 


Mr.  Jones,  Third  Negative. 

The  first  affirmative  speaker  showed  the  presence  of  corrupt  officials 
in  our  political  life  and  the  inadequacy  of  our  present  means  of  removal, 
which  we  admit.  The  second  and  third  speakers  maintained  the  recall 
would  secure  the  removal  of  such  officials.  The  gentlemen  also  spent 
considerable  time  in  arguing  that  the  recall  is  not  un-American,  that  it  is 
not  undemocratic,  and  so  on.  That  we  gladly  admit.  We  do  not  care 
what  its  nature  is ;  we  would  favor  its  adoption  provided  it  accomplished 
its  purpose  and  did  not  introduce  dangerous  tendencies  in  our  political 
life.  The  real  issue  tonight  is :  does  the  recall  accomplish  what  it  is  de- 
signed to  do? 

The  gentlemen  state  that  the  purpose  of  the  recall  is  to  remove  the 
corrupt  official.  To  prove  it  does  so  they  cite  but  three  instances — Seat- 
tle, Los  Angeles,  and  Tacoma.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  shown  where 
it  has  had  exactly  the  opposite  effect  in  two  cases,  that  of  Dallas  and 
Wichita.  We  have  pointed  to  the  instances  of  Huron,  S.  Dak. ;  Ashland, 
Oregon;  Estacada,  Oregon;  and  other  cities  where  the  recall  has  been 
invoked  without  cause  against  good  officials,  even  though  they  were  re- 
tained. We  have  also  shown  how  in  Seattle,  and  Tacoma,  within  the  last 
week,  the  recall  has  been  invoked  absolutely  without  cause  and  purely  for 
political  spite,  against  Councilmen  Blaine  and  Wardall,  and  Mayor  Sey- 
mour. We  submit  that  this  experience  shows  that  the  recall,  rather  than 
removing  the  corrupt  official,  is  accomplishing  the  exact  opposite.  Yet 
it  is  upon  this  experience  the  gentlemen  urge  its  adoption  for  all  elective 
officials  in  our  cities  and  states  generally. 

But  not  only  does  the  recall  wholly  fail  in  its  primary  purpose ;  it 
introduces  dangerous  elements  into  the  present  situation.  My  colleague 
showed  how  it  made  government  utterly  unstable,  demoralizing  business 
conditions.  To  this  the  gentlemen  of  Northwestern  have  not  answered 
one  word.  We  also  showed  that  the  recall  is  becoming  a  weapon  in  the 
hands  of  the  boss.  In  refutation  the  gentlemen  merely  tried  to  question 
our  instance  of  Wichita.  We  further  pointed  out  that  the  recall  has  de- 
terred good  men  from  running  for  office;  that  it  destroys  the  efficiency 

28 


Debate:     The  Recall 

of  the  constructive  and  ministerial  officer,  and  that  it  is  absolutely  unjust 
to  the  official.  The  gentlemen  have  not  offered  one  word  in  reply.  We 
insist  that  the  last  speaker  for  Northwestern  answer  these  objections.  If 
he  fails  to  do  so  we  contend  it  shows  a  fatal  weakness  in  his  case.  We 
believe  these  objections  to  be  vital,  for  if  there  was  ever  a  time  demanding 
stability  of  governmental  policy,  a  continuous  and  sane  interest  on  the 
part  of  the  voters,  the  complete  elimination  of  the  political  boss,  and  the 
greatest  efficiency  and  discretion  on  the  part  of  our  representatives,  it  is 
now  when  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  big  business  to  government  is 
being  determined. 

We  reaHze  and  regret  the  existence  of  misrepresentation,  but  we  offer 
no  substitute  because  we  feel  the  problem  is  being  solved  through  the 
placing  of  restrictions  on  the  selection  of  candidates  through  such  meas- 
ures as  the  direct  primary,  the  corrupt  practices  act,  publicity  of  campaign 
contributions,  and  the  short  ballot.  These  measures  go  directly  to  the 
root  of  the  evil  by  making  it  harder  for  the  corrupt  man  to  get  into  office 
so  he  can  misrepresent  us.  And  we  of  the  negative  are  optimistic  enough 
to  believe  that  the  problem  is  thus  solving  itself  without  the  adoption  of  a 
measure,  which  from  whatever  standpoint  you  view  it,  that  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  voter,  or  the  official,  that  of  practical  operation  or  the  theory 
of  government,  shows  itself  to  be  ineffective,  superficial  and  dangerous. 


Mr.  Foster,  Third  AflSrmative. 

The  gentlemen  from  Michigan  tell  us  that  the  criminal  courts  are 
adequate  to  remove  bad  officials.  They  admit  there  is  corruption  and  the 
criminal  courts  are  now  open  anxious  to  prosecute  if  evidence  is  furnished, 
but  still  the  corruption  continues.  It  does  not  take  a  very  smart  official 
to  keep  out  of  the  courts,  and  as  to  incompetency  and  unresponsiveness, 
the  courts  are  absolutely  helpless.     So  much  for  the  criminal  courts. 

We  asked  them  early  in  this  debate  to  point  out  the  distinction  be- 
tween general  and  special  elections.  If  they  deny  that  the  people  can 
express  themselves  at  general  elections  they  deny  representative  govern- 
ment, and  yet  what  have  they  answered  as  to  the  distinction  between 
general  and  special  elections?  To  this,  one  speaker  said  the  difference 
was  in  the  petition,  and  the  other,  that  the  special  election  was  quasi- 
judicial. 

As  to  the  petition,  we  all  know  that  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
intelligent  expression  at  the  election;  and  as  to  the  quasi- judicial,  my 
colleague  has  clearly  pointed  out  that  that  is  mere  idle  talk.  Therefore 
they  have  shown  no  difference.     If  there  is  a  distinction  it  is  in  favor  of 

29 


Debate:     The  Recall 

the  special  election  where  the  issue  is  clear  cut  and  usually  single ;  at  gen- 
eral elections  there  are  many  issues  and  they  are  often  clouded,  but  with 
clear-cut  issues  the  people  can  better  express  their  will  at  a  special  election 
than  at  a  general.  Therefore,  the  people  are  better  able  to  use  the  recall 
when  necessary  than  to  vote  at  general  elections. 

The  burden  of  their  argument  seems  to  be :  Can  we  trust  the  people? 
Do  the  people  know  what  they  want?  Let  us  remember  that  the  people 
put  all  the  limitations  they  have  upon  themselves.  Every  constitutional 
safeguard,  every  statutory  limitation  is  placed  on  the  people  by  themselves. 
Cannot  these  same  people  work  out  the  details  of  the  recall  so  that  there 
shall  be  no  abuse  on  the  one  hand  and  no  danger  of  its  becoming  a  dead- 
letter  on  the  other?  If  there  is  a  tendency  to  use  it  too  much,  the  percent- 
age required  on  the  petition  can  be  increased ;  if  ineffective,  it  can  be  de- 
creased. These  are  administrative  details  that  can  be  applied  to  the 
different  localities.  Therefore,  arguing  upon  these  details  as  to  its  abuse  is 
a  fallacy  and  not  debating  the  merits  of  the  question. 

Lastly,  let  us  conclude  that  there  is  misrepresentation ;  that  the  peo- 
ple are  helpless  to  remove  bad  officials  without  the  recall ;  that  the  recall 
removes  the  official  who  violates  his  trust  and  gets  a  better  man  in  his 
place ;  that  the  recall  stimulates  officials  generally  to  a  keener  sense  of  their 
duty ;  and  the  recall  sustains  the  interest  of  voters  and  educates  them  to 
better  carry  out  the  principles  of  representative  government.  Therefore, 
the  recall  is  desirable. 


30 


The   Briefs 

AFFIRMATIVE. 

Introduction — 
Origin. 
Definition. 
History. 

A.  WE    NEED    A    POWER    OF    REMOVAL    FOR    OFFICIALS    WHO 
MISREPRESENT. 

I.     Prevalence  of  misrepresentation. 

1.  Lack  of  responsiveness. 

a.  Treasurer  of  Cook  County. 

b.  President  Cook  County  Board  of  Commissioners. 

2.  Incompetence. 

a.  Official  lacks  qualifications  for  office  to  which  elected. 

b.  Official  only  a  figurehead  for  interests. 

3.  Corruption. 

a.  Exposures  in  cities. 

b.  Exposures  in  states. 

II.     People  helpless  to  remedy. 

1.  Impeachment   rarely  used  because   cumbersome. 

2.  Criminal  courts  powerless  for  lack  of  evidence. 

B.  THE  RECALL  GIVES  DIRECT  CONTROL  OVER  THE  OFFICIAL. 

I.     Removes  the  official  who  misrepresents. 

1.  Corrupt. 

a.  Mayor  Harper  of  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

b.  Mayor  Gill  of  Seattle,  Wash. 

2.  Incompetent. 

a.  Mayor  of  Junction  City,  Oregon. 

b.  Mayor  Fawcett  of  Tacoma,  Wash. 

S.     Unresponsive. 

a.  Treasurer  of  Cook  County. 

b.  Mayor  Speer  of  Denver. 

II.     Stimulates  all  officers  to  keener  sense  of  duty. 

1.  Spurs  new  official  to  show  himself  worthy. 

2,  Deters  official  from  violating  trust. 

C.  THE  RECALL  EXERTS  A  GOOD  INFLUENCE  ON  THE  VOTERS. 

I.     Sustains  interest  of  voters. 

1.  Gives  direct  responsibilities. 

2.  Furnishes  opportunities  to  help  matters. 

31 


Debate:     The  Recall 

II.     People  bring  out  good  men  for  office. 

1.  Bad  motives  for  entering  politics  eliminated. 

2.  Stimulus  to  profit  from  previous  mistake. 

3.  Examples. 

a.  Mayor  of  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

b.  Mayor  of  Tacoma,  Wash. 

III.     People  will  hold  officials  to  duty. 

1.  Bad  officials  will  creep  in;  but 

2.  Potential  power  of  recall  has  deterrent  effect. 
IV.     Recall  educates  voters  to  discriminate. 

1.  Issue  single  and  clear-cut. 

2.  Example  of  Tacoma,  Wash. 


NEGATIVE. 


THE  RECALL  WILL  HAVE  A  HARMFUL  EFFECT  ON  GOVERN- 
MENT. 

I.     Opposed  to  correct  theory  of  representative  government. 

1.  Assumes  that  officer  is  only  figurehead  for  voters;  whereas 

2.  Official  elected  by  reason  of  fitness,  and  must  use  discretion. 

3.  Voters  not  qualified  to  judge  of  every  isolated  act. 
II.     Will  produce  instability  in  government. 

1.  Makes  tenure  uncertain. 

a.  Present  tendency  is  to  lengthen  terms. 

b.  Official  needs  time  to  formulate  and  test  policies. 

2.  Will  cause  frequent  elections. 

a.  Twenty-ifive  per  cent  of  voters  can  call  election. 

b.  They  will  do  so  when  dissatisfied,  especially  where  re- 

sult is  close. 

c.  Examples  of  Tacoma  and  Oregon. 

III.    Instability  will  injure  business. 

1.  Business  demands  fixed  conditions. 

2.  Bad  effect  of  presidential  elections. 

3.  Examples  of  Wichita,  Los  Angeles  and  Seattle. 

THE    RECALL    WILL    HAVE    A    HARMFUL    EFFECT    ON    THE 
VOTERS. 

I.     Carries  into  effect  popular  impulse  and  prejudice. 

1.  Hasty  action  often  wrong. 

a.  Congressman  Wallace  of  Indiana. 

b.  Impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson. 

2.  Sober  second  thought  should  govern  in  elections. 

32 


Debate:     The  Recall 

II.    Opens  up  new  power  for  political  boss. 

1.  Frequent  special  elections  overburden  the  voter. 

2.  Political  boss  can  wear  out  the  voters  by  frequent  and  un- 

expected elections. 

3.  Boss  can  bully  official  by  threat  to  recall. 

a.  Ease  of  securing  petition. 

b.  Expense  to  official  of  recall  election. 

c.  Mayor  Graham  of  Wichita,  Kans. 

THE  RECALL  WILL  HAVE  A  HARMFUL  EFFECT  ON  THE  OF- 
FICIAL. 

I.    Deters  good  men  from  running  for  office. 

1.  Example  of  Los  Angeles. 

2.  Example  of  Seattle. 

II.    Destroys  efficiency  of  man  in  office,  by  taking  away  his  independ- 
ence. 

1.  Administrative  official. 

a.  Cannot  carry  out  constructive  program. 

b.  Example  of  Huron,  S.  D. 

2.  Ministerial  official. 

b.  Duties  are  technical,  not  political. 

c.  Example  of  Dallas,  Texas. 

III.    Unjust  to  official. 

1.  Improper  weapon  in  hands  of  opponents.    vWichita,  Kans.) 

2.  Disgraces  him,  even  if  innocent. 

3.  May  be  based  on  isolated  act.     (Judge  Coke.) 

4.  Decision  rests  on  momentary  passion. 


33 


The    Bibliography 


GENERAL  REFERENCES. 
Charter  of  the  City  of  Dallas,  1907.    Dallas:    Citizens'  Association,  1907.  92pp. 
Davis,  T.  A.:    The  Recall  as  a  measure  of  control  by  the  people.     (In  National 

Municipal  League.    Proceedings,  1906,  pp.  382-387.) 
Detning,  H.  E.:    The  government  of  American  cities;  pp.  105-108. 
The  Des  Moines  plan  of  city  government.     Des  Moines:  Commercial  club, 

1908.    31  pp. 
Charter  of  the  city  of  Fort  Worth,  Tarrant  County,  Texas.     Fort  Worth: 

Texas  Printing  Co.,  1909.     116  pp. 
Hamilton,  J.  J.:    The  dethronement  of  the  city  boss.    Recall,  pp.  38,  209-212, 

218-219. 
Charter  of  the  city  of  Los  Angeles.     Los  Angeles:    Press  of  Parker  &  Stone 

Co.,  law  printers  (1909),  123  pp. 
Mechem,  F.  R.:    A  treatise  on  the  law  of  public  offices  and  officers;  pp.  445-467. 
Governor  Folk's  message  to  the  Missouri  Legislature,  44th  General  Assem- 
bly (extra  session),  1907;  pp.  9-10. 
New  York  State  Library.    Bulletin.    Legislation.    Vol.  1 — date.    Albany,  1891- 

date.    See  index  under  Recall. 
Paine,  R.  T.,  Jr.:    The  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  recall  in  American 

cities.     (In  National   Municipal   League.    Proceedings,   Nov.  16-19,   1906; 

pp.  223-246,  Pittsburg,  1908.) 
Pomeroy,  E.:     The  Recall.     (In  Bliss,  W.  D.  P.,  ed.    New  encyclopedia  of 

social  reform,  p.  1050.) 
Charter  of  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco.    San  Francisco:     Carlisle  & 

CJo.,  printers,  1908.    206  pp. 
Schaffner,  M.  A.:    The  recall. 

Madison,  Wis.:    Wisconsin  free  library  commission,  1907,  21  pp.     (Com- 
parative legislation  bulletin,  no.  12.) 
Stilson,  F.  J.:    The  recall  in  Los  Angeles.     (In  National  Municipal  League. 

Proceedings,  1909,  pp.  326-333.    n.  p.,  1909.) 
Willard,  C.  D.: 

Municipal  progress  in  Los  Angeles.     (In  National  Municipal  League.  Pro- 
ceedings, 1905.    (n.  p.,  1905.) 
Governor  La  Follette's  message  to  the  Wisconsin  legislature,  47th   regular 

session,  1905.    Madison,  Wis.,  1905. — Municipal  government,  pp.  79-81. 

34 


Debate:     The  Recall 

Wisconsin  University:  University  extension  division.  Dept,  of  debating  and 
public  discussion.  The  recall.  Madison,  Pub.  by  University,  1908.  7 
pp.  Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  serial  no.  262;  General  series, 
no.  144. 

Lobingier,  Chas.  S.:     People's  Law.     MacMillan,  1910.     Pol,  Econ.  Lib. 

Illinois  Staite  Bar  Assn.  Proc,  1911.  Address  by  Clarence  T.  Wilson:  Ore- 
gon's experiments  in  self-government. 

See  Chapter  18  of  Oberholtzer — Initiative,  referendum  and  recall  in  America. 

Welliver:  Initiative,  referendum  and  recall.  Munsey's  Magazine.  Dec,  1911, 
p.  329. 

Bradford,  Ernest  S.:  Commission  Government  in  American  Cities,  Chap.  20 — 
Recall.     Hist.  Lib. 

Recall  in  California.  S.  G.  Lowrie  (In  Am.  Pol.  Science  Review,  5:  248), 
May,  1911. 

Recall  in  Texas.     (In  Outlook  98:  697-8),  July  29,  1911. 

AFFIRMATIVE. 

Anderson,  Sydney:     New  Mexico  and  Arizona.     Congressional  Record,  May 

23,  1911,  p.  1481  (current). 
Bisbee,  R.  E.:     Roger  Sherman  Hoar  on  the  recall.     Arena  41:  494,  July,  1909; 

Where  the  recall  is  needed.     Arena  41:  495,  July,  1909. 
Blight,  R.  E.:    Recall  of  the  mayor  of  Los  Angeles.     Independent  66:861,  Apr. 

22,  1909. 
Booker,  C.  F.:     The  recall.     In  his  speech  on  New  Mexico  and  Arizona.     Con- 
gressional Record,  May  22,  1911,  p.  1435  (current). 
Bourne,    Jonathan,    Jr.:     Initiative,    Referendum    and    Recall.     Atlantic     Mo., 

Jan.,  1912. 
Connell,  R.  C:     Admission  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico;  recall  or  no  recall, 

the  judiciary  is  safe  in  the  care  of  the  American  people.     Congressional 

Record,  May  23,  1911,  p.  1471  (current). 

Though  opposed  to  Recall,  does  not  believe  that  it  involves  a  denial  of  the 
intelligence  and  patriotism  of  the  American  people. 
Davis,  T.  A.:    The  recall  as  a  measure  of  control  by  the  people.    National 

conference  for  good  city  government.     Proceedings,  1906:  382. 
Experiments  in  democracy.     Outlook  89:  831,  Aug.  IS,  1908. 
Ferris,  Scott:     Recall  of  public  officers.     Congressional  Record,  May  29,  1911 

(current),  p.  1612. 
Hardy,  Rufus:     Recall.     In  his  speech  on  the  Admission  of  New  Mexico  and 

Arizona.     Congressional  Record,  June  1,  1911,  p.  1671. 
House-cleaning  in  Los  Angeles.     Outlook  91:  757,  Apr.  3,  1909. 
Lindbergh,  C.  A.:     Recall.     Congressional  Record,  May  23,  1911.  p.  1502. 
Mayor  Seymour  of  Tacoma.     Outlook  91:  947,  April  29,  1911. 

35 


Debate;:     The  Recall 

Morgan,  D.  T.:  Recall  of  public  officers.  Recall  of  judges.  In  his  speech  on 
the  admission  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico.  Congressional  Record,  May 
26,  1911,  p.  1565. 

Owen,  R.  L.:  Recall  of  public  officers;  the  right  of  recall;  the  recall  no  nov- 
elty. In  his  speech  on  New  Mexico  and  Arizona.  Congressional  Record, 
Mar.  14,  1911,  p.  4624,  4631. 

Parker,  A.  M.:     How  Seattle  got  the  recall.     Pacific  Monthly,  17:  455,  April, 

1907. 
Pomeroy,  Eltweed: 

First  discharge  of  a  public  servant;  Los  Angeles.     Independent  58:69,  Jan. 
12,  1905. 

Needed  political  reforms.  111.     The  recall.     Arena  28:470,  Nov.,  1902. 

Really  masters   (recall  of  J.   P.   Davenport,   Los  Angeles).     Arena  33:51, 
Jan.,  1905., 

What  is  the  recall?     Arena  36:49,  July,  1906. 
Recall  in  American  politics.    'Chautauquan  41:199,  May,  1905. 
Recall  in  Seattle.     Outlook  97:377,  Feb.  25,  1911. 

Recall  of  the  mayor  of  Los  Angeles.     Independent  66:432,  Feb.  25,  1909. 
Recall  of  the  Seattle  mayor.     Survey  25:879,  Feb.  25,  1911. 
Seattle  recall.     Outlook  97:295,  Feb.  11,  1911. 

Stephens,  W.  D.:     Recall.     Congressional  Record,  May  23,  1911,  p.  1500. 
Stilson,   F.   J.:     Recall   in   Los   Angeles.     National  conference   for   good   city 

government,  352.07-N19,  1909:326. 
Willard,  C.  D.:     A  political  experiment.     Outlook  l^All,  October  22,  1904. 
Municipal  progress  in  Los  Angeles,  National  conference  for  good  city  govern- 
ment, 1905:111. 

The  recall:  an  experiment.    The  same,  p.  384. 
Oregon's   Struggle  'for  purity   in    Politics.     Jonathan    Bourne.      (In    Ind.   68; 

1374-8,  June  23,  1910.) 
Popular  Government  in  Oregon.    Jonathan  Bourne.     (In  Outlook  96:  321-330, 

Oct.  8,  1910.) 
Popular  Government  vs.  delegated  government.     (In  Everybody's  23:  719-20.) 
Needham,   Henry   B.:     Woodrow   Wilson's   Views.     (In   Outlook   98:   939-51, 

Aug.  26,  1911.) 
Outlook  98:  912-4,  Aug.  26,  1911.     Statehood  veto. 
Watch  Commission  Government  Grow.     Wm.  Daly,  Jr.     (In  Everybody's  25: 

548-50,  Oct.,  1911.) 
Practice  of  the  Recall.     H.  S.  Gilbertson.     (In  Beard's  Loose-leaf  digest  of 

Short  Ballot  charters,  pp.  21801-21805.) 
Cry  of  judicial  despotism;  recall  of  judges.    Current  Literature  51:240-5,  Sept., 

1911. 

36 


Debate:     The  Recall 

Delaying  Statement  and  Veto  of  Judges,  Review  of  Reviews  44:  264-6,  Sept., 

1911. 
People's  Rule  in  Municipal  Affairs.     Geo.  H.  Haynes.     (In  Political  Science 

Quarterly,  Vol.  26,  pp.  432-442),  Sept.,  1911. 
Last  Call  for  Grafters  to  go.     Pearson's,  July,  1911. 
"People's   Rule"   in   Oregon,   1910.     Geo.   H.   Haynes.     (In   Political   Science 

Quarterly,  Vol.  26,  pp.  32-62,  March,  1911.) 
Election  and  the  progressive  principles.     L.  Abbott     (In  Outlook  96:  617-21.) 
Checks  and  balances.     (In  Ind.  70:  1075-6.)  May  18,  1911. 
Mayor  Seymour  of  Tacoma.     (In  Outlook  97:  947.)     April  29,  1911. 
Recall  in  Seattle.     (In  Outlook  97:  375-6.)     Feb.  25,  1911. 
Seattle  Recall.     (In  Outlook  97:  295.)     Feb.  11,  1911. 
Arizona  and  the  recall  of  the  judiciary.     Theodore   Roosevelt.     (In   Outlook 

98:378-9.)    June  24,  1911. 
Recall  in  Seattle.     Burton  J.  Hendrick     (In  McClure's,  Oct.,  pp.  647-663). 
Case  and  Comment  (Lawyer's  Magazine),  November,  1911.. 
Popular  Control  under  the  Recall.     H.  S.  Gilbertson.     (Annals  of  American 

Acad.  Pol.  and  Soc.  Science,  Nov.,  1911,  pp.  163-68.) 
June  24,  1911. 

Speech  of  Hon.  John  A.  Martin,  of  Colo.,  on  "The  Veto  and  the  Recall." 

NEGATIVE. 

Crumpacker,  F.  D.:     The  recall.     In  his  speech  on  the  Admission  of  Arizona 

and  New  Mexico  to  statehood.     Congressional  Record,  Mlay  29,   1911,  p. 

1607. 
Fink,  A.:     Recall  of  judges.     North  American,  193:  tl2,  May,  1911. 
Fox,  G.  L.:     The  recall.     National  conference  for  good  city  government,  1905: 

31. 
Hamilton,   E.   L.:     The  constitutions   of   New   Mexico  and   Arizona  and   the 

recall  of  judges.     Congressional  Record,  May  22,  1911,  p.  1429. 
Howland,  Paul:     Recall  of  judges.     Congressional  Record,  May   18,   1911,  p. 

1339. 
Kahn,  Julius:     Recall  of  public  officers.     In  his  speech  on  the  admission  of 

Arizona  and  New  Mexico.     Congressional  Record,  May  25,  1911,  p.  1540. 
Legare,  G.  S.:     Recall  of  the  judiciary.     In  his  speech  on  New  Mexico  and 

Arizona,     Congressional  Record,  May  17,  1911,  p.  1284. 
McCall,  S.  W.:     Recall.     In  his  speech  on  New  Mexico  and  Arizona.    Con- 
gressional Record,  May  23,  1911,  p.  1496. 
Mondell,  F.  W.:    Recall  of  judges.     In  his  speech  on  Statehood  for  Arizona 

and  New  Mexico.     Congressional  Record,  May  24,  1911,  p.  1517. 
Olmsted,  M.  E.:    Arizona    (Recall  of  judges).    Congressional  Record,  May 

25,  1911,  p.  1556. 

37 


Dbbatk:    The  Recall 

Woods,  Henry:     Recall.     America,  Vol.  5,  pp.  198-9.     June  19,  1911. 

Works,  J.  D.  The  recall.  In  his  speech  on  the  admission  of  the  territory  of 
Arizona  as  a  state.  Congressional  Record,  April  27,  1911,  p.  620.  Nega- 
tive for  judges.     Affirmative  for  other  officers. 

Possible  abuse  of  the  recall.     Christian  Science  M'onitor,  May  26,  1911. 

Recall  of  judges.     (In  Ind.  70:  1135.)  71:  384-5,  June  1:  Aug.  17,  1911. 

Recall  of  judges.    A.  Fink,  (In  No.  Am.,  193:  672-90),  May,  1911. 

Recall  of  the  Seattle  Mayor.     (In  Survey,  25:  879.)     Feb.  25,  1911. 

Recall  of  judges,  a  rash  experiment.     (In  Cent.,  82:  624-5.)     Aug.,  1911. 

Menace  of  the  Recall.     (Amer.  City  4:  275.)     June,  1911. 

Folly  of  the  Recall,  Outlook  98:  852-3,  Aug.  19,  1911. 

Representative  as  against  Direct  Government,  Samuel  W.  McCall — Atlantic, 
Oct.,  1911.    pp.  454-466. 

SEE  BIBLIOGRAPHIES  ON: 

City  Government  by  Commission,  by  Ford  McGregor.     (Univ.  of  Wis.  Exten- 
sion Series,  Vol.  1,  No.  4.) 
Commission  Plan  of  Municipal  Government,  Comp.  by  E.  C.  Robbins. 

(Debaters'  Handbook  Series.) 
Municipal  Home  Rule  Charters.     Wis.  Library  Commission  Legislative  Bulle- 
tin, No.  18. 
Corrupt  Practices  in  Elections.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress.) 
Popular  Election  of  Senators.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress.) 
Proportional  Representation.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress.) 
Initiative  and  Referendum.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress;  also  Debaters'  Hand- 
book Series.) 
Primary  Elections.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress.) 
Publicity  of  Campaign  Expenditures.     (U.  S.  Library  of  Congress.) 
Short  Ballot.     (Special  Libraries,  Vol.  2,  No.  6,  June,  19n,) 
Commission    Government.     (In    Beard's    Loose-leaf    Digest    of    Short    Ballot 
Charters,    pp.  81001-91401.) 


38 


Mcelroy  pubuishino  co 


CHICAOe,    ILL. 


TINIVFKSITY            C*^ 

^T^^                     ^MI^^^^H 

14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recall. 

200ct'591VlJ 

RFr^'Pi  i'r% 

OCT  ^0  iQGd 

AUG2  7l9/;5  ';  V 

V  V  1.   C\I    9999 

RECTI  ffl  <;t? 

•i73-4PII«t 

LD  21A-50m-4,'59 
(A1724sl0)476B 

General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 

